Disposed

Kailash Nath S/O Satya Narayan v. the Director, Elementary Education

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CW/623/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a recruitment examination answer key was disposed of in terms of the Court's earlier order in Karishma, with modification that petitioners submit representations within seven days for reference of disputed questions to an expert body.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners may submit representations within seven days; disputed answer-key questions to be re-examined by expert body and results revised accordingly.

Kailash Nath S/O Satya Narayan Vs the Director… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 623/2024

¶3

Kailash Nath S/o Satya Narayan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bansi, Post Indragarh, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶4

Nirmala D/o Mehar Chand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Abhaypura, Post Jharsar Chhota, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶5

Bhanwari Kumari D/o Mehar Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Abhaypura, Post Jharsar,chhota, Tehsil Tara Nagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶6

Santosh Mohan Dev Sharma S/o Manohar Lal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Gugdod, Post Bileta, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶7

Manju Choudhary D/o Harji Ram Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Post Mangri, Via Kucheel, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Agriculture Management Institute Building, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

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

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG Mr. N.S. Choudhary alongwith Ms. Nilchil Pal Singh for Staff Selection Board

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

19/01/2024

[CW-623/2024]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsels appearing for the parties fairly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18767/2023 “Karishma & Ors. Vs. The Director of Primary Education, Bikaner & Ors.” alongwith other connected matters.

¶20

In case of Karishma (supra) this Court has observed as under:-

¶21

“8. In case of Raman Choudhary (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has observed as under:-

¶22

“In view of the discussions made above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a directions to the respondents to refer the questions mentioned in these writ petitions 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 reexamining the matter, shall take into account the submissions made in the present writ petitions and thereafter pass appropriate orders with respect to the adjudication made by them on the objectionable questions raised in these writ petitions. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

[CW-623/2024]

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

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 re-examination.”

¶27

9. In view of the above, this Court disposes off these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to submit the representation detailing out their specific objections as has been stated in the writ petitions, to the respondents within fifteen days from today. The respondents on receipt of the representation, shall refer the questions mentioned in the representation 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 averments made in the representation and thereafter, pass appropriate order in respect to the adjudication made by them on the objectionable questions raised in these writ petitions and submit before the respondents by filing the representation. The said exercise of examination by the Expert Body shall be completed within a period of six 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.

¶28

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

¶29

11. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the RSSB has already made recommendation to the State Government for giving appointment to the selected candidates on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II in various subjects. The respondent-State shall make a mention in the appointment orders to be issued about the order of re-examination of the answer key and in case the result is revised and any person who has also been given appointment prior to the revision of the result, does not find place in the revised merit list, the appointment given to him

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CW-623/2024]

¶32

before revised result will not create any right in his favour to continue.”

¶33

Considering the submissions made by counsels for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed off in terms & conditions as given in case the of Karishma (supra) with a modification that the petitioners may submit their representations within seven days from today.

¶34

Since the main petition has been disposed off, the stay applications and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶36

Gaurav Srivastava/233

Kailash Nath S/O Satya Narayan v. the Director, Elementary Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Nath S/O Satya Narayan v. the Director, Elementary Education

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

Ramesh Kumar Vaidya Ors. Vs State

Prahlad Ram Yadav S/O Shri Phoolaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Santosh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Mohan Lal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunita Kumari W/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Babu Lal Vs the Director

Ranveer Singh Yadav Son of Shriram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan