advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, May 7, 2018

Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission= (1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revise the result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the basis of Report of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of our order dated 16.01.2018 and publish the revised result. 28 (2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need not revise the result of all those candidates whose names were included in the Select List earlier published. We having already pointed out that the appointments shall not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity to revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included in the Select List. (3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks of the last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included in the Select List on the basis of which appointments have been made by the Commission. (4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieve equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered appointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by the Commission in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above. (5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making recommendations for appointments shall be completed by 29 the Commission within a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps thereafter.

1
REPORTABLE
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4695­4699 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14306­14310/2017)
RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION  … RESPONDENT(S)
& ORS. ETC. ETC.
WITH
Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4722­4725   of   2018   (arising   out   of
SLP(C) Nos. 19151­19154/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
14481/2017);
Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4700­4701   of   2018   (arising   out   of
SLP(C) Nos. 14356­14357/2017);
Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4711­4712   of   2018   (arising   out   of
SLP(C) Nos. 14593­14594/2017);
Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4707­4710   of   2018   (arising   out   of
SLP(C) Nos. 14581­14584/2017);
Civil Appeal No. 4703­4706 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)
No. 14522­14525/2017);
Civil Appeal No. 4726 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
19157/2017);
Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4713­4720   of   2018   (arising   out   of
SLP(C) Nos. 14947­14954/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4721 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
18982/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4727 of 2018 (arising out of  SLP(C) No.
21506/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
29556/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
24264/2017)
2
Civil Appeal No. 4729 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
28724/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
32467/2017)
C.A.No.4754   of   2018   (arising   out   of   SLP(C)No.11674/2018
(Diary No(s). 9579)2018
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Delay Condoned. Leave granted.
2. This   batch   of   appeals   questions   the   judgment
delivered by Special Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan High
Court. The Special Appellate judgment of Rajasthan High
Court dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur and Judgment
dated 13.04.2017 delivered at Jaipur Bench, affirming the
judgments   of   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ
petitions filed by the appellants are under challenge.
3. The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam –
2015   conducted   by   Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “Commission”), in which they
3
could   not   be   declared   successful.     Brief   facts   giving
rise to these appeals are:­
(i) The   Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission
vide   its   advertisement   dated   16.10.2015   advertised
13,000 posts of School Lecturers for various subjects
under  Secondary  Education  Department,  Government  of
Rajasthan.  The examination consisted of two papers –
Paper­I – General Awareness and General Studies, and
Paper­II of respective subjects.  The examination was
conducted on 17.07.2016.  On 12.08.2016, answer keys
were   published   inviting   objections   regarding   the
answer   key.     Many   candidates   submitted   objections
with   regard   to   different   subjects,   with   regard   to
Paper­I   as   well   as   Paper­II.     On   22.09.2016,   the
Commission declared the result, against which several
writ petitions were filed questioning various answers
as per final answer key.   The learned Single Judge
vide its judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 in Writ
Petition No. 15028/2016   ­  Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs.
RPSC   &   Ors.  disposed   of   the   writ   petition   with
various   directions.   One   of   the   directions   was   to
4
upload the revised answer key along with report of
Experts on the website within one week.  In pursuance
of   directions   of   learned   Single   Judge   dated
08.11.2016,   final   answer   key   was   published   on
18.11.2016 and 18 questions in Paper­I were deleted.
Second   round   of   litigations   was   started   by   filing
various   Writ   Petitions   by   the   candidates   raising
various objections to the answer key.   The learned
Single   Judge   vide   its   judgment   dated   08.02.2017   at
Jodhpur dismissed the bunch of writ petitions after
considering   the   objections   raised   by   several   writ
petitioners.     Learned   Single   Judge   accepted   the
Expert Committee's report on various answers. 
(ii)   Against   the   judgment   dated   08.02.2017,   writ
appeals were filed by various candidates at Jodhpur.
The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 08.03.2017
dismissed the writ appeals confirming the judgment of
learned   Single   Judge.     While   dismissing   the   writ
appeals,   various   directions   were   issued   by   the
Division   Bench   to   the   Commission   with   regard   to
preparation and publication of answer key and action
5
to be taken against those who are entrusted with the
preparation   of   key   answers.     At   Jaipur   also,   writ
petitions were dismissed, against which writ appeals
were   filed   and   vide   judgment   dated   13.04.2017,
following the judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at
Jodhpur,   the   Division   Bench   also   dismissed   the
different writ appeals.
(iii)   Following   judgment   dated   08.03.2017,   the
Division Bench both at Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissed
several other writ appeals.   Before us, the appeals
filed   against   the   judgment   dated   08.03.2017   and
judgment dated 13.04.2017 and various other judgments
following   earlier   judgments   have   been   filed.   The
judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur Bench
is the main judgment which has been followed by the
High   Court   in   several   judgments   for   deciding   this
batch of appeals.  It shall be sufficient to refer to
and   consider   the   Division   Bench   judgment   dated
08.03.2017   giving   rise   to   the   Civil   Appeal   arising
out of SLP (C) Nos. 14306­14310 of 2017 –  Richal &
ors.   etc.etc.   Vs.   Rajasthan   Public   Service
6
Commission & ors. etc. etc.  for deciding this batch
of appeals.
4. In   this   batch   of   appeals,   various   applications   for
impleadment and intervention have been filed.   We allow
all   the   impleadment   and   intervention   applications.   This
Court after hearing the matter on 16.01.2018 passed the
following order:­
“The Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(RPSC) had issued an advertisement for filling
up   of   more   than   13,000   posts   of   school
lecturers   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan.   The
written test  was conducted pursuant thereto.
The   key   to   the   answers   was   also   published.
Some   of   the   candidates   questioned   that   the
aforesaid key does not give correct answers to
some of the questions. It was mentioned that
few questions were not even correctly framed.
On that basis, a writ petition was filed in
the   High   Court.   Learned   Single   Judge   after
going   into   the   said   grievances   of   those
candidates gave a direction 4 for constituting
the Expert Committee to examine as to whether
the key to the answers is correct. The Expert
Committee   gave   its   report   recommending
deletion   of   18   questions   which   according   to
the Expert Committee were not correctly framed
and, therefore, needed to be deleted. It also
corrected the answers to some other questions.
This led to second round of litigation as
the   petitioners   herein   (who   were   the   writ
petitioners in the High Court) submitted that
even   the   aforesaid   report   of   the   Expert
Committee   was   not   correct.   It   was   submitted
7
that   13   questions   were   wrongly   deleted.   In
support of this, the petitioners refer to the
text   books   of   the   NCRT   as   per   which   those
questions were rightly framed and there was no
question to delete them. It was also submitted
that five questions were still wrongly framed,
which needed to be deleted or correct answers
as   suggested   by   the   Expert   Committee   be
corrected. The High Court has dismissed this
writ petition. It has inter alia observed that
the   matter   be   given   quietus   inasmuch   as   it
would be in the public interest not to delay
the   appointment   of   13,000   teachers   in   the
State of Rajasthan.
We are informed that after declaration of
the result, successful candidates have already
been given appointment. It is pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that
many   posts   are   still   lying   vacant.   They
further submit that they have no objection if
the   candidates   who   have   already   been
appointed, their appointment is not disturbed
and at the same time the grievances as pointed
out by the petitioners be looked into by the
Expert   Committee   again   and   if   it   finds
justification   in   the   claim   of   the   5
petitioners, fully or partially, only cases of
other candidates who have not been appointed
be re­examined on the basis of the report that
would   be   given   by   the   Expert   Committee's
recommendations on these aspects. The learned
counsel   for   RPSC   wants   some   time   to   take
instructions in this behalf.
List the matters on 06.02.2018.”
5. In pursuance of our directions dated 16.01.2018, an
Expert   Committee   was   appointed   to   re­examine   the
grievances of writ petitioners/appellants.   An affidavit
8
dated 14.04.2018 sworned by Ramdev Siroya has been filed
by the Commission.  It is stated in the affidavit that on
the basis  of  reports  of Experts,  overall  22 answers in
all   the   nine   subjects   for   which   these   Experts   were
appointed   has   been   re­examined   and   the   answers   were
revised.  It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs 5 and
6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect:­
"5. On the basis of reports of Experts,
overall   22   answers   in   all   the   nine
subjects   for   which   these   experts   were
appointed   to   re­examine   claims   of
petitioners, were reported to be revised.
6. In the subjects of General Knowledge
(Paper­I) answers to five questions were
required   to   be   revised;   in   Paper­II
(subject)   in   commerce   answers   of   three
questions   were   required   to   be   revised;
three questions in subject Geography, Two
Questions   in   subject   Hindi   (Teaching
method); in subject History one question;
in   subject   Political   Science   four
question; and in subject Rajasthani three
questions were reported to be revised. A
chart   showing   question   numbers   subject,
answer in final key and new Expert Report
is   being   filed   herewith   and   marked   as
ANNEXURE A­1 (Pages 5)  True and correct
copies   of   reports   of   Experts   in   nine
subjects   is   being   filed   herewith   and
marked as ANNEXURE A­2 (Pages 6­46).   It
is stated that identity of Experts is not
being   disclosed.     That   on   the   basis   of
reports   of   the   experts   the   result   of
candidates   who   have   not   been   appointed
9
was   revised   by   the   Rajasthan   Public
Service Commission.”
6. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that out of
total number of posts in all the subjects, 729 candidates
who were offered appointment did not join.  Further, 316
candidates   who   were   although   selected   but   their
candidature   were   rejected.     Thus   in   all   1045   posts
remained vacant.   A detailed chart subject wise showing
all the details of posts advertised, candidates selected
and   recommended   and   appointments,   number   of   candidates
who did join and such candidates whose candidatures were
rejected   etc.   has   also   been   annexed   alongwith   the
affidavit.   It has been further stated in the affidavit
that in the present batch of appeals, there are in all
311   candidates.     It   is   stated   in   the   revised   results
prepared after Report by Experts Committee 48 petitioners
from all the Special Leave Petitions are found to be in
merit for selection, which candidates are spread over in
nine subjects.
7.  A   reply   affidavit   to   the   affidavit   filed   by
Commission dated 14.04.2018 has also been filed in Civil
10
Appeal of Richal & Ors.   In the reply affidavit, it has
been   stated   that   the   Commission   has   not   disclosed   the
actual   marks   secured   by   the   last   selected   candidate   in
terms of the first selection in various categories.    It
was stated that the Commission is required to prepare a
Revised   Notional   Select   List   of   candidates   presently
selected in light of the revision undertaken by Experts
based   on   actual   marks   secured   by   the   last   selected
candidates   in   various   categories.     The   appellants   have
also brought on record the copy of representation dated
23.01.2018   submitted   by   them   after   the   order   of   this
Court dated 16.01.2018.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
at  length  as  well  as  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
Commission,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   State   of
Rajasthan   and   learned   counsel   seeking   impleadment   and
intervention.
9. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that
although substantial grievances raised by the appellants
in these appeals stand satisfied by the Expert Committee
11
Report,   which   was   appointed   in   pursuance   of   direction,
there are still few grievances after revision carried out
by the Experts.   It is submitted that in revision also,
certain   mistakes   have   not   been   corrected.     Learned
counsel for the appellants in support of their submission
has   referred   to   few   questions   of   Paper­I   including
question No. 58 and certain other questions.
10. One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel
for   the   appellants   is   that   the   marks   of   18   questions
which were deleted from paper No.1 were redistributed in
the rest of the questions whereas the marks should have
been   allocated   to   only   those   candidates   who   have
attempted such questions. Those candidates, who even did
not   attempt   those   questions,   were   allocated   the   marks
which  was  not  in  accordance with  law.  The  marks should
have   been   allocated   only   to   those   candidates   who
attempted   deleted   questions,   in   alternative,   it   is
submitted   that   full   marks   with   regard   to   18   deleted
questions ought to have been given to all the candidates.
11. Learned   counsel   for   the   Commission   refuting   the
submissions of the appellants submitted that almost all
12
the grievances  having  been  taken  care  of  by the Expert
Committee   and   the   result   of   non­selected   candidates
having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered
in   these   appeals.   It   is   submitted   that   Experts   having
revised   the   key   answers   and   having   now   submitted   a
Report, which has been accepted by the Commission, this
Court shall not permit the appellants to re­challenge the
decision of Expert Committee.   It is submitted that out
of all the Special Leave Petitioners, only 48 have been
found selected.
12. We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
     
13. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of
appeals relates to correctness of final   key answers as
uploaded   by   the   Commission   after   considering   objections
thereto.   The   appellants'   case   is   that   the   treatment   of
the objections by the Expert Committee was not based on
authoritative   text   books   on   the   subject   and   several
errors crept into the answer key vitiating the merits of
the candidates affecting the entire selection.
13
14. The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of
correctness   of   key   answer   had   been   considered   by   this
Court   time   and   again.   This   Court   had   entertained   such
challenges   on   very   limited   ground   and   has   always   given
due weight  to  the  opinions  of  subject  experts.  A  three
Judge Bench of this Court in  Kanpur University, through
Vice­Chancellor   and   others   vs.   Samir   Gupta   and   others,
1983 (4) SCC 309,  had occasion to consider a case where
challenge   was   made   to   the   key   answers   supplied   by   the
paper­setter   with   regard   to   multiple   choice   of   the
objective   type   test   for   admission   in   medical   courses
through combined Pre­Medical Test. The High Court while
considering   the   challenge   of   the   candidates   to   various
key   answers   accepted   the   challenge   to   different
questions. With regard to some of the questions the High
Court held that the key answer is not the correct answer.
This   Court   repelling   the   challenge   made   the   following
observations in paragraphs 15 and 16:
“15.  The findings of the High Court
raise a question of great importance to
the   student   community.   Normally,   one
would be inclined to the view, especially
if   one   has   been   a   paper­setter   and   an
examiner,   that   the   key   answer   furnished
14
by the paper­setter and accepted by the
University   as   correct,   should   not   be
allowed   to   be   challenged.   One   way   of
achieving   it   is   not   to   publish   the   key
answer at all. If the University had not
published the key answer along with the
result   of   the   Test,   no   controversy
would have arisen in this case. But that
is not a correct way of looking at these
matters   which   involve   the   future   of
hundreds   of   students   who   are   aspirants
for admission to professional courses. If
the key answer were kept secret in this
case,   the   remedy   would   have   been   worse
than   the   disease   because,   so   many
students   would   have   had   to   suffer   the
injustice in silence. The publication of
the key answer has unravelled an unhappy
state of affairs to which the University
and   the   State   Government   must   find   a
solution.   Their   sense   of   fairness   in
publishing the key answer has given them
an opportunity to have a closer look at
the   system   of   examinations   which   they
conduct.   What   has   failed   is   not   the
computer but the human system.
16.Shri   Kacker,   who   appears   on
behalf of the University, contended that
no challenge should be allowed to be made
to   the   correctness   of   a   key   answer
unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.
We   agree   that   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
rationalisation.   It   must   be   clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say,
it must be such as no reasonable body of
men well­versed in the particular subject
would   regard   as   correct.   The   contention
of   the   University   is   falsified   in   this
15
case   by   a   large   number   of   acknowledged
textbooks,   which   are   commonly   read   by
students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no
room for doubt that the answer given by
the   students   is   correct   and   the   key
answer is incorrect.”
12. Following   the   above   judgment   in  Kanpur   University
(supra)  this   Court   in  Manish   Ujwal   and   others   vs.
Maharishi   Dayanand   Saraswati   University   and   others,
2005(13) SCC 744,  reiterated the principle in following
words in paragraphs 9 and 10:
“9.  In  Kanpur   University  v.  Samir
Gupta considering a similar problem, this
Court   held   that   there   is   an   assumption
about the key answers being correct and
in   case   of   doubt,   the   Court   would
unquestionably prefer the key answers. It
is   for   this   reason   that   we   have   not
referred to those key answers in respect
whereof there is a doubt as a result of
difference   of   opinion   between   the
experts.   Regarding   the   key   answers   in
respect whereof the matter is beyond the
realm of doubt, this Court has held that
it   would   be   unfair   to   penalise   the
students  for not  giving an answer which
accords with the key answer, that is to
say, with an answer which is demonstrated
to   be   wrong.   There   is   no   dispute   about
the   aforesaid   six   key   answers   being
demonstrably   wrong   and   this   fact   has
rightly   not   been   questioned   by   the
learned   counsel   for   the   University.   In
this   view,   students   cannot   be   made   to
16
suffer   for   the   fault   and   negligence   of
the University.
10.  The   High   Court   has   committed   a
serious   illegality   in   coming   to   the
conclusion that “it cannot be said with
certainty   that   answers   to   the   six
questions given in the key answers were
erroneous   and   incorrect”.   As   already
noticed, the key answers are palpably and
demonstrably   erroneous.   In   that   view   of
the   matter,   the   student   community,
whether the appellants or intervenors or
even those who did not approach the High
Court   or   this   Court,   cannot   be   made   to
suffer on account of errors committed by
the University. For the present, we say
no   more   because   there   is   nothing   on
record as to how this error crept up in
giving the erroneous key answers and who
was negligent. At the same time, however,
it   is   necessary   to   note   that   the
University and those who prepare the key
answers   have   to   be   very   careful   and
abundant   caution   is   necessary   in   these
matters   for   more   than   one   reason.   We
mention few of those; first and paramount
reason being the welfare of the student
as a wrong key answer can result in the
merit being made a casualty. One can well
understand   the   predicament   of   a   young
student   at   the   threshold   of   his   or   her
career if despite giving correct answer,
the student suffers as a result of wrong
and   demonstrably   erroneous   key   answers;
the second reason is that the courts are
slow   in   interfering   in   educational
matters   which,   in   turn,   casts   a   higher
responsibility   on   the   University   while
preparing   the   key   answers;   and   thirdly,
in   cases   of   doubt,   the   benefit   goes   in
favour   of   the   University   and   not   in
17
favour of the students. If this attitude
of   casual   approach   in   providing   key
answers   is   adopted   by   the   persons
concerned,   directions   may   have   to   be
issued   for   taking   appropriate   action,
including   disciplinary   action,   against
those   responsible   for   wrong   and
demonstrably   erroneous   key   answers,   but
we   refrain   from   issuing   such   directions
in the present case.”
               
13. To   the   same   effect,   this   Court   in    Guru   Nank   Dev
University vs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749,
had directed the University to revaluate the answers of 8
questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE.
This   Court   also   disapproved   the   course   adopted   by   the
University which has given the marks to all the students
who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of
whether someone had answered questions or not.
14. Another   judgment   which   is   referred   to   is  Rajesh
Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4)
SCC 690, where this  Court  had occasion to consider the
case pertaining to erroneous evaluation using the wrong
answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission invited
applications against the posts of Junior Engineer(Civil).
Selection process comprised of a written objective type
18
examination.   Unsuccessful   candidates   assailed   the
selection.   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   referred   the
“model answer key” to experts. Based on the report of the
experts, Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of
100   are   wrong.     The   Single   Judge   held   that   the   entire
examination was liable  to  be  cancelled  and  so  also  the
appointments   so   made   on   the   basis   thereof.   The   Letters
Patent Appeal was filed by certain candidates which was
partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The   Division   Bench   modified   the   order   passed   by   the
Single   Judge   and   declared   that   the   entire   examination
need  not  be cancelled.  The  order  of Division  Bench  was
challenged wherein this Court in paragraph 19 has held:
“19.  The   submissions   made   by   Mr   Rao
are not without merit. Given the nature
of the defect in the answer key the most
natural and logical way of correcting the
evaluation of the scripts was to correct
the   key   and   get   the   answer   scripts   reevaluated
  on   the   basis   thereof.   There
was, in the circumstances, no compelling
reason for directing a fresh examination
to be held by the Commission especially
when   there   was   no   allegation   about   any
malpractice,   fraud   or   corrupt   motives
that   could   possibly   vitiate   the   earlier
examination to call for a fresh attempt
by   all   concerned.   The   process   of   reevaluation
  of   the   answer   scripts   with
19
reference   to   the   correct   key   will   in
addition   be   less   expensive   apart   from
being quicker. The process would also not
give   any   unfair   advantage   to   anyone   of
the candidates on account of the time lag
between the examination earlier held and
the one that may have been held pursuant
to   the   direction   of   the   High   Court.
Suffice it to say that the re­evaluation
was and is a better option, in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
15. The key answers prepared by the paper­setter or the
examining   body   is   presumed   to   have   been   prepared   after
due   deliberations.   To   err   is   human.   There   are   various
factors which  may  lead  to  framing  of  the  incorrect  key
answers.   The   publication   of   key   answers   is   a   step   to
achieve   transparency   and   to   give   an   opportunity   to
candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An
opportunity   to   file   objections   against   the   key   answers
uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness
and perfection in the process. The objections to the key
answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter
corrective   measures,   if   any,   should   be   taken   by   the
examining  body. In  the  present  case we  have noted  that
after considering the objections final key answers were
published   by   the   Commission   thereafter   several   writ
20
petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the
key   answers   adopted   by   the   Commission.   The   High   Court
repelled   the   challenge   accepting   the   views   of   the
experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up
in this Court by filing these appeals.
16. This Court while hearing the appeals found substance
in   some   of   the   submissions   raised   before   us   and
appellants   having   satisfied   this   Court   that   certain
questions   need   re­examination   by   experts,   this   Court
issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant
to the directions of this Court the Expert Committee reexamined
  the   questions   with   regard   to   which   objections
were   raised   in   these   appeals.   After   the   order   of   this
Court   dated   16.01.2018   the   Commission   adopted   Expert
Committee   Report   which   re­examined   the   questions   with
regard to which objections were raised before us in these
appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018 has been filed by
the   Commission.   The   affidavit   contains   the   following
statements:
(i)   on   the   basis   of   the   Report   of
Experts, Answers to 22 Questions across
9   subjects   were   corrected   and   revised.
21
[p.2­3   pr.6   of   Affidavit   ]   [Chart   has
been annexed at p.5]
(ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted
by   Experts  w.r.t.  Questions  in   Paper   I
(General Awareness & General Studies) as
per   Chart   [p.5   of   Affidavit]   reveals
that:
(a)  Experts   accepted  Petitioner’s 
Representation   and   retained   3 
questions (Q Nos. 53, 57,  60) of 18
earlier deleted questions.
(b)  Experts   accepted  Petitioners’ 
Representation   and   corrected   the 
answer of 1 question  (Q.No.3) in
     the  remaining 57 questions.
    (c)  Experts   rejected  Petitioners’ 
Representation seeking  correction
of answer of 5 questions  (Q. Nos.
     25,  28, 33,  49, 58).
(iii)   RPSC   has   stated   that   out   of   the
total number of Advertised posts(13,098)
1045   vacancies   in   the   post   of   School
Lecturers   still   exist.   [p.3   pr.7   of
Affidavit]  [Chart   has   been   annexed   at
p.47]
(iv)   RPSC   has   stated   that   48   of   311
Special   Leave   Petitioners   before   this
Hon’ble   Court   are   within   merit   for
selection   as   School   Lecturers   after
revision of their answer scripts.[p.3­4
pr.8 of Affidavit]
17. By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to
supply   the   Report   of   the   Expert   Committee   to   all   the
parties.   The   copies   of   the   Report   have   been   supplied.
22
During   the   course   of   hearing,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants   submitted   that   substantial   grievances   raised
in   these   appeals   have   been   redressed   by   the   Expert
Committee.   The   representations   made   by   the   appellants
have been substantially accepted as noted above. However,
learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   have   contended   that
certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still
not   correct.   Before   us   certain   questions   have   been
pointed   out   which   according   to   the   appellants   have   not
been satisfactorily dealt with by the Expert Committee.
It shall suffice to refer to the question No.58 of paper
No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the
Expert   Committee   has   accepted   option   No.4   as   correct
option   whereas   correct   option   is   option   NO.3.   Learned
counsel for the appellants has to make his point home has
placed before us the following  chart:
Question
No.58
Option
Answers
RPSC
Answer
Expert
Report
(p.15)
Petitioner
Answer
Evidence in support
Minimum
Number
of
Working
Hours
per week
for the
teacher
(1) 35
Teaching
Plus
Preparation
Hours
(2) 40
Teaching
plus
Option
4
Option
4
Option
3
1. The RTE Act
specifies that
“Minimum number of
working hours per
week for the
teacher : Forty
Five including
preparation hours”
23
in RTE
Act,
2009 is
preparation
hours
(3) 45
Teaching
Hours
(4) 45
Teaching
plus
preparation
hours
2. RPSC asked same
question in School
Lecturer Exam 2013
and considered “45
Teaching Hours” as
correct Answer.
Expert Committee
has itself at p.15
quoted the RTE Act,
2009 quoted the
minimum teaching
hours as “45
Teaching including
Preparation Hours”
18. At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first
blush,  we  also  observed that  there  may  be  substance in
what   is   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants with regard to question No.21, however, when
we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given
by  the  Expert  Committee,  we are inclined  to agree  with
the answer given by the Expert Committee. The reason for
our accepting the opinion of the Expert Committee is as
follows: The question No.58 which was asked  was:“Minimum
Number of Working Hours per week for the teacher in RTE
Act, 2009 is”.
19. Thus   answer   had   to   indicate   the   number   of   working
hours.   Notification   has   been   issued   under   the   RTE   Act
24
where minimum teaching hours for a week is mentioned as :
“45   Teaching   including   Preparation   Hours”.   Thus   minimum
number of working hours per week has been provided as 45
which   figure   includes   both   teaching   and   preparation
hours.   The   statutory   provision   uses   the   word  teaching
including preparation hours whereas answer uses the words
teaching plus preparation hours. There is no dispute that
figure 45 is a correct figure only issue is with regard
to whether option No.3 is correct or option No.4. Option
No.3   mentions   “45   Teaching   Hours”.   The   answer   No.3   is
obviously   not   according   to   the   statutory   prescription
which provides “45 Teaching including Preparation Hours”.
Correct answer, thus, is option No.4 which mentions  “45
Teaching   plus   preparation   hours”.   Instead   of   using   the
word including  as used in statutory provision the answer
uses word  plus. When the figure 45 includes teaching as
well as preparation hours the use of word teaching plus
preparation hours connotes the same meaning. We, thus do
not find any substance in the above submission.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed
out several other questions in paper No.1 which according
25
to the learned counsel for the appellants have not been
correctly   answered   by   the   Expert   Committee.   We   have
considered few more questions as pointed out and perused
the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of
the view that no error can be found with the answers of
the Expert Committee with regard to three more questions
which   have   been   pointed   out   before   us.   The   Expert
Committee,  constituted to validation of answer key, has
gone through every objection raised by the appellants and
has satisfactorily answered the same. The Commission has
also accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and has
proceeded to revised the result of 311 appellants before
us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the Expert
Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need
to be implemented.
21. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is
that  marks  of  deleted  questions ought  not  to  have  been
redistributed   in   other   questions.   It   is   submitted   that
either   all   the   candidates   should   have   been   given   equal
marks   for   all   the   deleted   questions   or   marks   ought   to
26
have been   given only to those candidates who attempted
those questions.
22. The questions having been deleted from the answers,
the question  paper  has  to  be  treated  as containing  the
question   less   the   deleted   questions.   Redistribution   of
marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to
be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a
uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to
the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all
the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed
of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers
which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any
fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks.
The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.
23. In   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   Commission   it   is
mentioned  that  the  result  has  been  revised  of  only  311
appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view
that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the
candidates   except   those   who   have   already   been   selected
needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018
it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those
27
who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view
that   the   Commission   should   revise   the   entire   result   of
all   the   candidates   except   those   who   have   been   selected
on   the   basis   of   the   report   of   Expert   Committee   and
publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key
answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the
examination,   they   are   entitled   for   revision   of   their
result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but
lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable
to  not  extend  the  benefit  to  those  candidates  who  have
not   come   to   the   Court   being   satisfied   with   the   steps
taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee
which was given the task of revising the key answers.
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of
these appeals with the following directions:
(1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed
to revise the result of all the candidates including all
the   appellants   on   the   basis   of   Report   of   the   Expert
Committee   constituted   in   pursuance   of   our   order   dated
16.01.2018 and publish the revised result.
28
(2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need
not revise the result of all those candidates whose names
were   included   in   the   Select   List   earlier   published.   We
having   already   pointed   out   that   the   appointments   shall
not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity
to   revise   their   result.   Thus,   this   exercise   shall   be
undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included
in the Select List.
(3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks
of   the   last   selected   candidates   in   the   respective
categories  who  were included  in the Select  List on  the
basis   of   which   appointments   have   been   made   by   the
Commission.
(4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates
who   achieve   equal   or   more   marks   in   their   respective
categories   shall   be   offered   appointments   against   1045
vacancies   as   has   been   mentioned     by   the   Commission   in
paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above.
(5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making
recommendations   for   appointments   shall   be   completed   by
29
the   Commission   within   a   period   of   three   months   from
today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps
thereafter. 
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
MAY 03,2018.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.