Dismissed

Rohit Saharan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2023CW/7854/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a competitive exam answer key regarding Question No. 42. The Court found the petitioner's grievance addressed after the respondent deleted the question and recalculated marks, dismissing the writ petition and stay application due to lack of factual basis for the petitioner's claim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition and stay application dismissed as the grievance is fully addressed by the deletion of the question and revised marking.

Rohit Saharan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011558]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7854/2017

¶4

Rohit Saharan S/o Shri Bhup Ram, By Caste Jat Obc, R/o House No. 835, Ward No. 14, Opp. Rajender School, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Department Of Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines, Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan Municipalities Administrative And Technical And Subordinate And Ministerial Services S, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines, Phatak, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Secretary.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu with
	Ms. Preet Kamal Kaur Sidhu and
	Mr. PardeepSingh Khoea
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Parihar

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

24/04/2023

¶14

By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the answer published by the respondents qua question No.42.

¶15

Question No.42 reads thus:-

¶16

“ fuEu esa ls dkSulk Lizs isVªksy ls yxh आग ds fy, mi;qDr ekuk tkrk gS] D;ksfd blesa fNMdko rFkk Qsyus dh izo`fr gksrh gSA

¶17

A. BCF B. Water C. Co2 D. Foam”

¶18

Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that answer published in model answer key is option (B) – Water whereas it should have been option (D) - Foam.

[2023/RJJD/011558]

[CW-7854/2017]

(2 of 3)

According to this Court, the contention raised by the petitioner is absolutely correct and the answer to the question in dispute could not have been water.

¶23

This Court on 06.02.2023 directed the learned counsel for the respondent to explain the variance in marks originally obtained and marks awarded after revised result.

¶24

On the basis of the reply and assertions made therein, Mr. Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after publication of model answer key, objections were invited and considering the objections in relation to question No.42, the respondents decided to delete two questions, viz. question No. (42) and question No.(23). And accordingly, marks were awarded to the candidates out of 118 questions and thus, each correct question was given 1.01694915 marks and accordingly, the petitioner has secured 96.0359176522 marks.

¶25

It is asserted that since the petitioner has secured lesser marks than the cut – off for “OBC – Male category”, his name was not shown in the list of selected candidates.

¶26

Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the rejoinder, argued that had it been the case, petitioner’s marks could not have remained the same (96.0359176522) and after deletion of question No.42, they should have increased.

¶27

In response to such contention, Mr. Parihar submitted that result and marks of all the candidates were declared after considering objections of the model answer key and therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that after deletion of question No.42, his

[2023/RJJD/011558]

[CW-7854/2017]

(3 of 3)

marks could not have remained the same has no factual foundation.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

The petitioner has approached the Court only challenging question No.42 and its corresponding answer.

¶34

In view of the reply field by the respondents and the assertion that such question has been deleted and proportionate marks have been given to all the candidates out of 120 while increasing the weightage of all 118 questions as stated above, the petitioner’s grievance stands duly readdressed.

¶35

So far as petitioner’s assertion that petitioner’s marks have remained unaltered is concerned, it has no factual foundation and pleadings. That apart, the fact that marks were never declared prior to publication of final answer key and were declared only once, has not been proved wrong by way of pleadings or documentary evidence.

¶36

The writ petition so also stay application stand dismissed accordingly.

¶37

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶38

13-akansha/-

Rohit Saharan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Saharan v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokendra Pal Singh Vs Jai Narain Vyas University,Jodhpur and Ors.

Harshita Ramina Vs Director, Board of Secondary Edu.

M/S Shree Shiv Jyoti Enterprises Pvt. Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Vs the Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

Shilpi Pokharna Vs Union of India

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs State of Rajasthan