Dismissed

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CW/14101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the recruitment result for Lab Assistant posts. Rejecting calls to reversal expertise, the bench held the Court cannot re-evaluate answer keys, upheld the expert's deletion of four flawed questions and validation of other answers, dismissing the petitions as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation that the final answer key and result published by the subject expert will prevail and no marks shall be added for the petitioners.

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001348]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13901/2019

¶4

Shantnu Jain S/o Shri Jayram Jayram Jain, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jain Gali Rajakhera Dist Dholpur. (Roll No. 179347)

¶5

Mohit Gurjar S/o Prasadi Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bisa Ka Bas, Post Dwarapur Tehsil Thanagazi, Alwar. ( Roll No. 354472)

¶6

Ganpat Singh S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Kosariya Tehsil Bitu Badmer. (Roll No. 403922)

¶7

Kishan Kumawat S/o Dhannaram Kumawat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Bhojpur Tehsil Khandela Dist Sikar. (Roll No. 369981).

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

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

¶11

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Board, Jaipur, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶12

The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14101/2019

¶16

Pankaj Jangir S/o Banwari Lal Jangir, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Dudhwakhara District Churu.

¶17

Vishnu Yadav S/o Shri Narayan Lal Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ranwan Road, Ward No.8, Chomu, Jaipur.

¶18

Dharmendra Kumar Saini S/o Shri Gopal Lal Saini, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Morrija, Bhojwala, Teshil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶19

Champa Lal S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Anandpura, Ramgarh, Jaisalmer.

¶20

Biju Prakash Meena S/o Shri Bansidhar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Malera, Post Jatwali Via Samod Tehsil Chomu, Disrict Jaipur.

¶21

Sohan Lal Gurjar S/o Narayan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 25

(2 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Soda, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.

¶26

Shashikant Shukla S/o Shri Shiv Lal Shukla, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo Baleta, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar.

¶27

Vinod Kumar Gayari S/o Shri Manna Lal Gayari, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gayri Mohalla, Partapgarh, District Pratapgarh.

¶28

----Petitioners

¶29

Versus

¶30

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

¶31

Secretary, Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Raghunandan Sharma with
	Mr.Abhinav Srivastava
	Mr.Sumit Jain
	Ms.Sweety Mishra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Nalin G.Narain, AGC

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

02/02/2023

REPORTABLE :

These two writ petitions involve common issue and as such, the same are decided by a common order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

(2) SB Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 has been filed by the petitioners by making following prayers :

¶40

“1. Quashed and set-aside the impugned Final Answer Key dated 22-07-2019 and result dated 22-07-2019 for document verification on account of three

(3 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

questions (question No.58, 88, 130 and 142) were wrongly deleted and answer of question No.12 was wrongly changed as “A” instead of “D” and despite objection question No.16 which was having two options correct, either it could have deleted or marks should be given to those persons who have given both the option (A and C) correct.

¶45

Directed to the respondents not to delete Question No. 58, 88, 130 and 142 in Final Answer Key.

¶46

Further directed to the respondents question No.16 of master booklet may be deleted or marks given to all candidate who have given option “A”, and “C”.

¶47

Further directed to the respondents not to change the answer of question No.12 as “A” instead of “D”.

¶48

Further directed to the respondents revise the result according to above prayer and if then petitioner scored more mark then he may be call for document verification and given offer of appointment with all consequential benefits.”

¶49

(3) SB Civil Writ Petition No.13901/2019 challenges the question No.12 in the written examination for the post of Lab Assistant and also the result dated 22^nd September, 2019.

¶50

(4) This Court takes SB Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 as a lead case for taking the facts on record, as pleaded in the writ petition.

¶51

(5) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that an advertisement dated 09^th May, 2018 was issued by the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for making recruitment on the post of Lab Assistant against 954 Non-TSP posts.

(4 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(6) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that online application forms were submitted by all of them in their respective categories before the last date of submission of forms.

¶56

(7) The petitioners have pleaded that they were issued admission card by the respondents to appear in the examination scheduled on 03^rd February, 2019 and all the petitioners had appeared in the examination.

¶57

(8) The petitioners have pleaded that the petitioners were supplied with the question booklet, where maximum marks of 300 were given and further, the booklet provided that there was to be negative marking of each wrong answer by deducting 1/3rd mark.

¶58

(9) The petitioners have pleaded that after examination, the preliminary answer key was uploaded by the respondents and objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates.

¶59

(10) The petitioners have pleaded that they raised their objections with regard to certain questions and also deposited the requisite fee and after submitting objections, the petitioners were hopeful that their objections were to be taken in right perspective.

¶60

(11) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that on 22^nd July, 2019, final answer key was published and uploaded, wherein question Nos.38, 48, 58, 67, 88, 130 and 142 were deleted and answer of question No.12 was changed as ‘A’ instead of ‘D’.

(5 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(12) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that the respondents, on the basis of result declared on 22^nd July, 2019, started scrutinizing eligibility and document verification of the candidates, as per the merit awarded to the different qualified candidates.

¶65

(13) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that name of the petitioners were not found in the list of qualified candidates on account of deleting the questions and wrongly changing the answer of question from the preliminary answer key and as such, the petitioners, as per the preliminary answer key, would have secured more than cut off marks. The petitioners have also prepared a table showing cut off marks in the different categories and the marks, secured by them.

¶66

(14) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that the respondents not only deleted the question Nos.58, 130 and 142 but also changed the answer key of question No.12 and the question No.16, not having the correct option and the same should have either been deleted or the mark should have been given to all those candidates, who had given both options, i.e., ‘A’ and ‘C’.

¶67

(15) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that if the option would have rightly been changed, all the petitioners would have secured more than cut off marks.

(6 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(16) The petitioners have pleaded that before approaching this Court, they filed representation before the Authorities and when no heed was paid to it, they approached this Court.

¶72

(17) Learned counsel for the respondents have filed reply to the petition and the respondents have pleaded in their reply that the disputed questions were examined by the subject experts and on the basis of their opinion, final answer key was issued and accordingly, the result was prepared by them.

¶73

(18) The respondents, in Para No.11 of their reply, have pleaded that opinion of the expert, in respect of question No.12, was having option ‘A’ as the answer and accordingly, in the final result, the same was treated as the correct answer and not the earlier answer, which was option ‘D ’as published in the preliminary result.

¶74

(19) The respondents have further pleaded in their reply that in respect of question No.16, the expert had found the correct answer as ‘C’, which was initially given in the preliminary result and the final result was also having the same answer.

¶75

(20) The respondents have pleaded in their reply that the question Nos.58, 130, 142 & 88, as per the opinion of subject expert, in the final answer key were deleted and as such, these four questions were not taken into account while preparing the final result.

(7 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(21) The respondents have pleaded in their reply that the petitioners have been awarded correct marks on the basis of final answer key and as such, no illegality has been committed by them.

¶80

(22) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during pendency of the writ petition(s), they have filed a miscellaneous application, whereby certain document i.e. material have been brought on record to show correct answer of question Nos.12 and 16.

¶81

(23) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the information sought under Right to Information Act, 2005, in respect of question No.12, had clearly shown that the option given earlier as option ‘D’ was the correct option and not the option ‘A’, as found by the subject expert in the final answer key.

¶82

(24) Learned counsel further submitted that in respect of question No.16, the books, approved by the Secondary Board of Education, has been placed on record, wherein two options were correct in respect of question No.16 and the respondents have wrongly taken Dholpur - ‘C’ as the only correct option while both districts, I.e, Dholpur and Bharatpur had desired to merge with the State of Uttar Pradesh and not in the Matasya State, as was the question put to them.

¶83

(25) Learned counsel for the petitioners have made following submissions :

(8 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(25.1) The petitioners have placed on record cogent material in support of their correct answer in respect of question Nos.12 and 16 and the material, placed before this Court, clearly demonstrates that the respondents have committed error even relying upon the expert report and as such, the final answer key needs to be set aside by this Court by accepting the correct option, as has been given by the petitioners on the basis of authentic subject books.

¶88

(25.2) The objections, raised by the petitioners in respect of preliminary answer key, have not been taken into account in a proper manner and irrelevant material has been taken into account for publishing the final answer key.

¶89

(25.3) The deletion of question Nos.58, 88, 130 and 142 was not warranted only on account of some dispute raised by certain other candidates and on account of deletion of such questions, merit position of the petitioners has been affected causing prejudice and as such, the respondents, on account of granting favour to other candidates, have deleted these questions.

¶90

(25.4) If certain questions would not have been deleted, merit of the petitioners must have gave much higher than the cut off marks and the petitioners could have secured placement in the merit for the purpose of appointment.

¶91

(25.5) This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if finds that the answer key contains palpably wrong answers and as

(9 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

such, no inferences or deductions are to be made then this Court, while exercising the power, can set aside the opinion of the experts.

¶96

(25.6) If non-application of mind or arbitrariness is apparent from the bare reading of report of the expert, the selected candidates or those, who are likely to come in the merit, should not be deprived from of their right of appointment.

¶97

(26) Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavita Bhargava Vs. Registrar Examination,

¶98

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (DB Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022 928/2022) decided on 08^th April, 2022.

¶99

(27) On the strength of said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since no inferential process of reasoning or process of rationalization is required then in such a situation, the Courts have ample power to set aside opinion of the experts and corrective measure may be directed to be taken to rectify the mistake.

¶100

(28) Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the preliminary answer key was published by the respondents, wherein objections were invited from all the candidates and after considering the objections, not only of the petitioners but of the other candidates as well, the experts, in the subject, were asked to examine each objection in detail and after

(10 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

receiving opinion of the subject expert, the final answer key was published and as such, no error has been committed by the respondents.

¶105

(29) Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that during pendency of these writ petitions, this Court had directed to place on record the material and opinion of the expert, on the basis of which, the final answer key was published.

¶106

(30) Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the opinion in respect of question No.12 and has also annexed the material/books, which were relied upon by the subject expert to come to conclusion that option ‘A’ was correct answer in respect of question No.12 and not the option ‘D’, as was initially published.

¶107

(31) Learned counsel submitted that the expert has considered various books and other material, relevant for judging the correct answer and as such, the books, which are relied upon by the petitioners, cannot be the sole criteria for coming to conclusion that option ‘D’ was the correct answer.

¶108

(32) Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in respect of question No.16, the correct answer was initially published in preliminary answer key as option ‘C’ and in the final answer key also, only one option was correct and accordingly, the answer ‘C’ was again reiterated by the subject expert.

(11 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(33) Learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention of this Court towards the answer, which has been given by the subject expert in respect of question No.16 that there were two districts, which wanted to merge in the State of Uttar Pradesh and not with the State of Matasya, as has been pleaded by the petitioners.

¶113

(34) Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Ankit Sharma (DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.429/2022) , along with other connect appeal, decided on 23^rd February, 2022 as well as on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2018 (2) SCC 357].

¶114

(35) On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the examination process, the grievances of the petitioners, if have been taken care of by considering objections and thereafter, the result is prepared on the basis of report of expert, it would not be proper for the High Court to interfere in such academic matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶115

(36) I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, available on record.

(12 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(37) This Court, before dealing with the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, needs to discuss the law, laid down by the Apex Court from time to time in respect of scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of examination, conducted by the recruitment agencies.

¶120

(38) This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2021)

¶121

2 SCC 309] has considered the scope of interference by the Courts in respect of the academic matters and the opinion given by the experts. The Apex Court has reiterated the principal that assessment of question by the Courts itself to arrive at correct answer, is not permissible.

¶122

(39) The Apex Court has further laid down that delay in finalization of appointments to public post is mainly caused due to pendency of the cases challenging the selection, pending in the 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 regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.

¶123

(40) This Court deems it proper to quote relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. (supra) for ready reference :

(13 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

“14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of reevaluation 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 (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur) . 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 v. H.L.Ramesh).

¶128

Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. 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 academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:

¶129

“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. 32. 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

(14 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

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

¶134

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 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

(15 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.

¶139

17.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.

¶140

The submission made by the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs.

¶141

It is clear from the statement filed by the RPSC that there are vacancies existing which can be utilized for appointing the Appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates.”

¶142

(41) This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh & Ors. (supra) has again considered the scope of interference or judicial review in respect of scrutiny of answer sheet or re-evaluation of answers.

¶143

(42) The Apex Court has laid down the law that compassion sympathy or claim on the basis of assessment cannot be permitted as the entire examination process is derailed because

(16 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.

¶148

(43) The Apex Court has further held that all the candidates suffer equally though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible.

¶149

(44) This Court finds that in the present case, initially the preliminary answer key was published and objections were invited and finally the subject expert, after considering various objections, found that question Nos.58, 88, 130 and 142 were required to be deleted.

¶150

(45) This Court finds that if four questions have been deleted, the same would apply to all the candidates, as no marks will be added or calculated against these questions and as such, it cannot be said that a prejudice would be caused to any candidate on account of deletion of these four questions.

¶151

(46) The prayer made by the petitioners directing the respondents not to delete these questions would result into reviving the situation where subject expert finds that questions were either having wrong option or more than one option and while permitting these questions to be put on back of question paper, would be like allowing an illegality to be perpetuated.

(17 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

(47) This Court finds little substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have acted in arbitrary manner in deleting four questions. The deletion of question would apply to all candidates and as such, no undue benefit can be claimed by any candidate on deletion of any particular question or more than one question and as such, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be accepted to revive the question Nos.58, 88, 130 and 142.

¶156

(48) The next issue is with regard to considering the correct answer of question No.12.

¶157

(49) Learned counsel for the petitioners have tried to convince this Court by referring to certain paragraphs contained in the book, said to be approved by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education and on the basis of certain observations and judgments, it is pleaded that the answer ought to have been as option ‘D’ and not as option ‘A’.

¶158

(50) This Court has also gone through the material, which has been placed on record by the respondents along with an additional affidavit and this Court finds that the material, which has been relied upon by the expert before publishing final answer key, has given option ‘A’ as correct answer.

¶159

(51) This Court finds that if the experts have taken into account the relevant material and other books, available on the subject

(18 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

and if option ‘A’ has been found to be correct, no illegality can be examined by this Court.

¶164

(52) This Court even if has option to see correctness of an answer in the face of the opinion of an expert, it will not be appropriate to substitute its own views in respect of the opinion, which is given by the subject expert. If this kind of exercise would be permitted, the Court would definitely be forming its opinion in the academic matters and the same is not permissible, as has been held by the Apex Court in the above referred two cases.

¶165

(53) The grievance of the petitioners in respect of question No.16 that there was no one district but there were two districts, i.e., Bharatpur and Dholpur, which had expressed their willingness to merge with the State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of merger of the State or at the time of formation of Matasay State, this Court finds that the expert has considered the relevant material, placed before him and further, deductions and inferences, which are sought by the petitioners by reading few lines from the books, which have been produced before this Court, would not result into forming opinion by this Court that the option ‘C’ has wrongly been chosen by the respondents.

¶166

(54) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners would have been in merit, had the respondents acted in proper manner and even addition of one correct answer would bring them in the prescribed merit list, suffice it say by this Court that if final answer key has been published and correct re-

(19 of 19)

[2023/RJJP/001348]

[CW-13901/2019]

evaluation has been made by the subject expert, adding of any mark or not giving any weightage to negative mark, would not bring the petitioners within the merit and ultimately, the answer key, which has been published, will prevail in these matters.

¶171

(55) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have considered the objections of other candidates and in fact, they have acted in arbitrary manner in accepting the objections of other candidates while deleting the question Nos.58, 88, 130 and 142, suffice it to say by this Court that if said four questions have been deleted, the same have been deleted on account of either having more than one option as correct or the question itself was not properly framed.

¶172

(56) Accordingly, this Court finds that no arbitrariness can be attached to the decision, which has been taken by the respondents.

¶173

(57) Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitions lack merit and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be separately placed in the connected file.

¶174

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶175

Preeti Asopa /12-13

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rakhi Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sameer Ahemad Son of Shri Islam Ahemad Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Meena S/O Shri Radheshyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Ronak Serawat S/O Ramkishor Serawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom Meena Son of Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary

Anil Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Raj and Ors.