whether the respondent (plaintiff) was able to prove his subsisting title over the suit land on the date of filing of the suit and, if so, how, or in the alternative, whether the appellants (builder, firm and its partners) were able to prove the subsisting title of the original holders (three PATIL) over the suit land, if so, how.= The original holders (three PATIL) though filed the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time the original holders (three PATIL) approached the 31 Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years) as has been held supra. In our view, therefore, the High Court was right in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour (assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 and secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders (three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed through original holders, had any right to claim any interest in the suit land.

 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPERAL Nos. 4757-4760 OF 2018
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.32252-32255 of 2016]
M/s Eureka Builders & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Gulabchand s/o Veljee Dand Since
Deceased by L.Rs. & Ors.Etc.Etc. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals arise from the common final
judgment and order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the
High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad
in R.F.A. Nos.100017 of 2015, 100018 of 2015,
100016 of 2015 and 100099 of 2015, whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the
appeals by allowing the plaintiff’s appeal and
1
accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as
regards the status and the ownership rights of the
plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled
to claim his 1/5th share in it along with defendants
Nos.1 to 4, who are legal representatives of late Shah
Veljee Kanjee.
3) In order to appreciate the issues involved in
these appeals, it is necessary to set out the
background facts, which led to filing of the suit by
the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.1 and 2
and now represented by respondent Nos. 1 and 2
against the appellants and remaining respondents
No.3 to 34 herein out of which these appeals arise.
4) The case has a history of litigation as it would
be clear from the narration of the facts stated
hereinbelow. The facts mentioned hereinbelow are
taken from SLP paper books and its list of dates.
2
5) The appellants herein are defendant Nos. 18 to
25 (who are builder, firm and its partners) whereas
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the legal representatives
of original plaintiff and respondent Nos. 3 to 34 are
proforma defendants in a civil suit (O.S. No.37/2010)
out of which these appeals arise. The contest in these
appeals is essentially among the appellants and
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
6) The dispute relates to a land bearing CTS Nos.
361 and 366 of CTS Ward No.1 (originally bearing RS
Nos. 20/1/& 20/2 admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Guntas
and 1 Acre 25 Guntas respectively) situated at
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubli described in detail
in the schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to
as "the suit land").
7) The suit land was a "watan" property under the
Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act (hereinafter
referred to as “the MHO Act”) and on its repeal in
3
1961, was governed by the Karnataka Village
Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the
KVA Act”).
8) The suit land originally belonged to three
persons namely, Marigouda Patil, Basangouda Patil
and Adveppagouda Patil (hereinafter referred to as
“three PATIL”).
9) On 23.10.1915, three PATIL leased out land
bearing CTS No. 366 (3 acres 20 guntas) to one
Chaturbhuj Ratansi for a period of 50 years whereas
the land bearing CTS No. 361 (1 acre 25 guntas) was
permanently leased out to one Kanjee Ghelabhai Shet
alias Gujjar on 09.03.1920.
10) In 1942, land bearing CTS No.361 was sold in
Court Auction proceedings and one person by name –
Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased the said land being
the highest bidder.
4
11) On 14.05.1943, Shah Veljee Kanjee purchased
another parcel of land bearing CTS No.366 by direct
sale/purchase. Shah Veljee Kanjee died on
02.12.1957 leaving behind his widow-Gunwantibai,
two major daughters and four minor sons. By
inheritance, the legal representatives stepped into his
shoes and became the joint owners of the suit land.
12) On 19.12.1957, the widow and 2 major
daughters of late Shah Veljee Kanjee sold the suit
land to one Gadag Co-operative Cotton Sales Society
Ltd.-defendant No. 17 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Society”).
13) The son of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, who is
plaintiff (since dead) and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in the
present suit out of which these appeals arise felt
aggrieved by the sale dated 19.12.1957 made by their
mother and two sisters in favour of the Society and
accordingly filed civil suit being O.S. No.9/1969
5
praying therein for a declaration that the sale made
by their mother and two sisters is bad in law and
void to the extent of plaintiff's share (5/8th) in the suit
land. The mother, two sisters and the Society
contested the suit as defendants.
14) This suit was, however, decreed on 26.08.1977
by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in plaintiff's
favour. It was held that the sale made by the mother
and two sisters of the plaintiff in favour of the Society
is illegal and thus is not binding on the plaintiff to
the extent of his 5/8th share in the suit land.
15) This decree was challenged by the purchaser
(Society) in the High Court and later in this Court but
was not successful. In other words, the Society lost
the legal battle throughout up to this Court and
resultantly, the decree dated 26.08.1977 passed by
the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in plaintiff's
favour became final.
6
16) In execution of this decree, the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1-4, who are the legal representatives
of late Shah Veljee Kanjee, were accordingly placed in
joint possession of their shares in the suit land.
17) As mentioned above, the appellants herein are
the builder, firm and its partners. They claimed to
have entered into an agreement with the original
owners (three PATIL) on 23.03.2001 for purchase of
the suit land on certain terms and conditions.
18) In the year 2004, the original owners (three
PATIL) claiming their ownership rights over the suit
land filed two civil suits being O.S. Nos.364 & 365 of
2004 against the legal representatives of Shah Veljee
Kanjee and the Society. The Civil Court dismissed
both these civil suits as barred by time vide judgment
dated 29.01.2007. The two dismissals attained
finality because the three PATIL did not pursue the
matter further in appeals to the higher Courts.
7
19) During interregnum period, there were several
rounds of litigation in civil, revenue and rent courts
among the parties and their representatives.
Similarly some subsequent developments in relation
to the suit land conferring some rights by the State
on the parties also took place. However, at this stage,
it is not necessary to give details of this litigation and
its development. The same will be referred to at a
later stage while dealing with these submissions.
20) It is basically with the aforementioned
background facts, one son of Shah Veljee Kanjee
(respondent No.1 herein (since dead) and represented
by his legal representatives son/daughter as
respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed civil suit
(O.S.No.37/2010) on 23.02.2010 in the Court of
Principal Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Hubli out of
which these appeals arise against 27 defendants
which included the members of Shah Veljee Kanjee
8
family, their legal heirs, legal representatives of
original holders (three PATIL) and two intending
purchasers/buyers of the suit land, namely, Society
and the other, M/s Eureka builders - a firm and their
partners (appellants herein).
21) The suit was filed for partition and separate
possession of plaintiff's 1/5th share in the suit land
and also for grant of permanent injunction
restraining the two intending buyers/purchasers of
the suit land from interfering in plaintiff's possession
over the suit land.
22) In substance, the plaintiff (respondent Nos.1
and 2 herein) had claimed the aforementioned reliefs
on the basis of his title over the suit land which,
according to him, was already adjudicated and
recognized in his favour by the Civil Court vide
judgment dated 26.08.1977 passed in O.S.
No.9/1969 and it remains upheld up to this Court.
9
23) So far as other family members of Shah Veljee
Kanjee (defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (c), 2 and 4) are
concerned, they filed their counter claim and
admitted the claim set up by the plaintiff in the suit.
24) The suit was mainly contested by appellant No.1
herein i.e. the Builder (defendant No. 18) on several
grounds such as, firstly, the suit is not maintainable
because proper reliefs were not claimed by the
plaintiff; Second, the suit property is not properly
valued; Third, the plaint is insufficiently stamped;
Fourth, the suit is barred by limitation.
25) So far as the merits of the claim is concerned,
appellant No.1 (defendant No.18) denied the
plaintiff's title over the suit land and averred inter
alia that the original holders of the suit land (three
PATIL) with whom they entered into an agreement to
purchase the suit land were having subsisting right,
title and interest in the suit land by virtue of two
10
re-grant orders (31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973) made
by the State in their favour under the KVA Act of
1961 on the application of the original holders (three
PATIL) and, therefore, the original holders (three
PATIL) were competent to enter into an agreement to
transfer the suit land in their favour on 23.03.2001.
26) It was also averred that whatever ownership
rights in the suit land which the plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 4 were possessing in their favour
stood extinguished on account of the two re-grant
orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 made by
the State in favour of the original holders (three
PATIL) and, therefore, in the light of these
subsequent events which came into existence, no
decree can now be passed in favour of plaintiff and
defendant Nos.1 to 4 in relation to the suit land for
any relief on the strength of their title.
11
27) Issues were framed and parties adduced their
evidence. By judgment/decree dated 07.11.2014, the
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli decreed the
plaintiff's suit in part and passed the preliminary
decree of partition and separate possession in
relation to the suit land in plaintiff's favour as prayed
in the suit.
28) The Additional Senior Civil Judge answered
almost all the issues in plaintiff's favour and held
that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the
leasehold right in respect of the suit scheduled
property and so also defendant Nos. 1 (a) to (c), 2 and
4 are entitled to claim their 1/5th share each in
leasehold rights in respect of the suit land along with
the plaintiff.
29) The plaintiff, the legal representatives of
defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and defendant No. 17-
Society felt aggrieved of certain findings about the
12
ownership status of the plaintiff in the suit land and
accordingly filed four separate first appeals in the
High Court at Bangalore.
30) So far as the present appellants are concerned,
they did not prefer any appeal as they seemed to be
satisfied with the judgment of the Trial Court.
31) By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
disposed of all the four appeals. The High Court
allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and
accordingly modified the finding of the Trial Court as
regards the status and the ownership rights of the
plaintiff in the suit land and held that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit land and is, therefore, entitled
to claim his 1/5th share in the suit land along with
defendants, who are legal representatives of late
Shah Veljee Kanjee like the plaintiff.
32) It is against this judgment of the High Court,
the appellants herein (defendant Nos. 18 to 25 - who
13
are builder, firm and its partners) have felt aggrieved
and filed the present appeals by way of special leave
petitions in this Court.
33) Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Basava Prabhu S.
Patil, learned senior counsel, Mr. G.V.
Chandrashekhar, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Mr.
Raghavendra S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respective respondents.
34) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in these appeals. In our view, the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High
Court cannot be faulted with. We are, therefore,
inclined to uphold the reasoning and the conclusion
arrived at by the High Court by assigning our
reasoning infra.
14
35) At the outset, we observe that so far as the
right, title and interest of the appellants in the suit
land is concerned, the appellants neither claim and
nor do they have a right to claim any right, title and
interest in the suit land in their own rights. In other
words, the status of the appellants in this litigation
are that of the intending purchasers of the suit land
from the original holders of the suit land (three
PATIL).
36) In our view, if the original holders (three PATIL)
are able to prove their subsisting right, title and
interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, the
appellants would be able to get the relief in the suit
because they are claiming through original holders
(three PATIL). But if the original holders (three PATIL)
are not able to prove their subsisting right, title and
interest over the suit land against the plaintiff, then
the appellants would also loose the case.
15
37) As mentioned above, the appellant alone was
contesting the suit as defendant No.18. It is not in
dispute that original holders (three PATIL) did not
contest the suit. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant was satisfied with the judgment/decree
passed by the Trial Court, therefore, they did not file
any appeal in the High Court.
38) It is with these background facts of the case, we
have to examine the question arising in these appeals
as to whether the respondent (plaintiff) was able to
prove his subsisting title over the suit land on the
date of filing of the suit and, if so, how, or in the
alternative, whether the appellants (builder, firm and
its partners) were able to prove the subsisting title of
the original holders (three PATIL) over the suit land, if
so, how.
39) In our considered opinion, the appellants have
failed to substantiate the right, title and interest of
16
the original holders (three PATIL) in the suit land
through whom they claim to derive interest in the
suit land, whereas the respondent (plaintiff) has been
able to prove his subsisting right, title and interest in
the suit land on the date of filing of the suit, out of
which these appeals arise. The appellants, therefore,
have no locus to claim any interest in the suit land.
40) It is a settled principle of law that a person can
only transfer to other person a right, title or interest
in any tangible property which he is possessed of to
transfer it for consideration or otherwise.
41) In other words, whatever interest a person is
possessed of in any tangible property, he can transfer
only that interest to the other person and no other
interest, which he himself does not possess in the
tangible property.
42) So, once it is proved that on the date of transfer
of any tangible property, the seller of the property did
17
not have any subsisting right, title or interest over it,
then a buyer of such property would not get any
right, title and interest in the property purchased by
him for consideration or otherwise. Such transfer
would be an illegal and void transfer.
43) In such eventuality and subject to any terms
and conditions if agreed between the parties, a buyer
will have a right to claim refund of sale consideration
from his seller, which he paid for purchase of the
property under the law of contract. The reason is
that the contract to purchase has failed and,
therefore, the parties have to be restored back to
their original positions, which existed at the time of
execution of the contract.
44) This principle of law may apply inter se the
original holders (three PATIL) of the land and the
intending buyers of the suit land with which we are
not concerned in this case because the present
18
litigation does not arise between these parties and
nor we are deciding the inter se rights of these parties
in these appeals.
45) This principle we have mentioned only to clarify
the inter se rights of the parties against each other in
relation to the suit land and especially the right of
the appellants against the original holders(three
PATIL) and not beyond it.
46) In our considered opinion, the reasons as to
why the appellants failed to prove the subsisting
right, title and interest of the original holders
(intending sellers-three PATIL) in the suit land are
more than one as are set out by us hereinbelow.
47) First, the original holders (three PATIL) had filed
two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365 of 2004) in relation
to the suit land asserting therein their ownership
rights over the suit land against the present plaintiff
and other members of Shah Veljee Kanjee but both
19
the suits were dismissed by the Civil Court on
23.11.2004.
48) These dismissal attained finality regardless of
the fact as to on what grounds they suffered
dismissal. These dismissals were binding on the
original holder (three PATIL). A fortiori, these
dismissals are binding on the appellants too because
the appellants were claiming through the original
holders (three PATIL).
49) It is for this reason, we are of the view that the
original owners did not have any subsisting right,
title and interest in the suit land, which they could
have or/and were capable to transfer to the
appellants whether for consideration or otherwise on
the date when they entered into an agreement of sale
of the suit land to the appellants on 23.03.2001.
50) Second, it cannot be disputed that original
holders (three PATIL) had parted with the suit land
20
long back by legal mode of transfer, one through
Court Auction proceedings in 1942 and the other by
direct sale/purchase on 14.05.1943 in favour of
Shah Veljee Kanjee.
51) Since then, the original holders (three PATIL)
did not have any subsisting right, title and interest in
the suit land because whatever rights, title and
interest which they had in the suit land, the same
were transferred to Shah Veljee Kanjee through Court
Auction proceedings in 1942 and by direct
sale/purchase on 14.05.1943. These rights were then
devolved on his legal representatives by inheritance
consequent upon the death of Shah Veljee Kanjee.
52) It also cannot be disputed, as taken note of
above, that the Civil Court had already recognized
the rights, title and interest of the legal
representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee in the suit land
in O.S. No.9/1969 filed by them against the
21
purchaser-Society. This suit was decreed in favour of
legal representative of Shah Veljee Kanjee on
26.08.1977 and remained upheld up to this Court.
53) It is due to these reasons also, all the rights,
title and interest of original holders (three PATIL) in
the suit land stood extinguished.
54) Now coming to the main argument of Mr.
Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, which he pressed in service with
vehemence.
55) Learned senior counsel urged that the original
holders of the suit land (three PATIL) having parted
with the suit land in 1942 and 14.05.1943, again got
back the suit land by way of re-grant in their favour
by order dated 31.03.1973 in respect of land (CTS
No. 361) passed by the State under KVA Act of 1961
and by other re-grant order dated 01.04.1973 passed
by the State in respect of land (CTS No. 366).
22
56) It was, therefore, his submission that in this
way, the title in the suit land stood reverted to the
original holders (three PATIL) from the dates of these
two orders.
57) On this basis, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants was that whatever rights,
title and interest in the suit land which the
respondent (plaintiff) might have got in 1942 and on
14.05.1943 while acquiring the suit land, the same
stood extinguished on account of re-grant made by
the State in favour of original holder (three PATIL) in
1973 by the two orders referred above.
58) We find no merit in this submission for more
than one reason. Assuming for the sake of argument
that as a result of the re-grant orders made by the
State in favour of the original holders (three PATIL),
the rights, title and interest in the suit land again
reverted to them in 1973 but they failed to exercise
23
their right of ownership over the suit land for a long
time, hence their right of ownership stood
extinguished.
59) It was only after 31 years from the re-grant
order, the original holders woke up from slumber and
filed two suits (O.S. Nos.364 and 365/2004) against
the plaintiff and other members of Shah Veljee
Kanjee in the Civil Court. It is not in dispute that the
two civil suits also suffered dismissal from the Civil
Court on 23.11.2004 and attained finality.
60) In our considered opinion, whatever so-called
rights, title and interest which the original holders
derived from the orders of re-grant in 1973 in the suit
property in their favour, the same stood extinguished
by efflux of time.
61) The reason was that in order to keep such new
rights intact and enforceable, the original holders
(three PATIL) were under a legal obligation to have
24
filed a suit for claiming a declaration and possession
of the suit land and this ought to have been done by
them within 12 years from the date of re-grant, i.e.,
1973.
62) They, however, failed to do so within 12 years
and when they actually tried to exercise their rights
by filing the suit in 2004 (after 31 years from 1973),
by then it was too late to exercise such rights in law.
By that time, their rights in the suit land stood
extinguished.
63) Section 27 of the Limitation Act deals with
extinguishment of right to property. It says that at
the determination of the period prescribed in the Act
for any person to institute a suit for possession of
any property, his right to such property shall be
extinguished. Articles 64 and 65 of the Schedule
provide 12 years period for filing a suit to claim
possession of any immovable property. The period of
25
12 years prescribed in these two articles is required
to be counted from “the date of dispossession”
(Article 64) and “when the possession of the
defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff” (Article
65).
64) As held supra, the original holders (three PATIL)
failed to file the civil suit against the plaintiff claiming
possession of the suit land on the strength of their
new title namely, re-grant in relation to the suit land,
within 12 years from the date of re-grant and,
therefore, by virtue of Section 27 of the Limitation
Act, their all rights, title and interest in the suit land
got extinguished.
65) In view of these reasons, we are of the
considered view that neither the original holders
(three PATIL) and nor the appellants could take any
benefit of the orders of re-grant dated 31.03.1973
and 01.04.1973 made by the State so as to divest the
26
legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee (plaintiffs)
from their rights, title and interest in the suit land
which they had legally acquired through Court
Auction and direct purchase in 1942/43.
66) This issue can be examined from yet another
legal angle on the admitted facts situation arising in
the case.
67) It is not in dispute that Shah Veljee kanjee, in
the first instance, acquired legal and valid title in the
suit land through Court Auction proceedings in the
year 1942 and second, by direct purchase of the part
of the suit land on 14.05.1943 from the original
holders (three PATIL).
68) In our view, the plaintiff in alternative can be
held to have acquired title against the original
holders(three PATIL) by operation of law. The reason
is not far to seek.
27
69) Admittedly, the plaintiff continued to remain in
lawful possession of the suit land since 1942/1943,
first through Shah Veljee Kanjee and after his death
through his legal representatives. It is not in dispute
that the original holders (three PATIL) were aware of
the ownership rights of Shah Veljee Kanjee over the
suit land since 1942/1943 as Shah Veljee Kanjee got
the suit land by State Auction proceedings and also
by direct sale/purcahse.
70) In this way, it was proved that the possession of
Shah Veljee Kanjee over the suit land was throughout
long, continuous, uninterrupted, open and peaceful
with assertion of ownership from 1942 till 2004 to
the knowledge of the whole world.
71) The aforesaid undisputed facts confirm the
possessory rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in
the suit land against everyone including the original
holders (three PATIL) by operation of law.
28
72) Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
then referred the provisions of MHO Act and KVA Act
and pointed out the nature of grant and the re-grant
of the suit land made in favour of the original holders
by the State and how it devolved on the holders etc.
73) In our view, this submission need not be dealt
with in detail because it has no relevance in the light
of our findings recorded above against the appellants.
74) In other words, once the rights of the original
holders in the suit land stood extinguished, this
submission does not survive for consideration on its
merits.
75) A right in the property once extinguished by
operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law
itself provides for its revival in a particular situation.
Such is not the case here.
29
76) There is, however, another infirmity in the case
of the appellants, which disentitle them to claim any
relief in relation to the suit land.
77) As mentioned above, the appellants, for proving
the right of ownership of the original holders (three
PATIL) in the suit land, have placed reliance on the
two orders dated 31.03.1973 and 01.04.1973 of the
State by which the State is alleged to have made
re-grant of the suit land in favour of the original
holders (three PATIL).
78) In our view, in the absence of any adjudication
of the right of ownership of the original holders (three
PATIL) on the strength of these two orders by the
competent Court as against the other stakeholders
having an interest in the suit land and especially the
legal representatives of Shah Veljee Kanjee, it is not
possible to give any benefit of these two orders in
30
favour of the original holders (three PATIL) in these
proceedings.
79) That apart, what is the effect of passing of the
two orders on the rights, title and interest of the
purchasers of the suit land because admittedly, the
suit land was sold to the purchaser (Late Shah Veljee
Kanjee) prior to passing of these two orders and
whether these orders will ipso facto divest the
purchasers of their rights, title and interest in the
suit land were required to be gone into by the
competent Court after affording an opportunity to
such affected persons, namely, legal representatives
of late Shah Veljee Kanjee.
80) The original holders (three PATIL) though filed
the civil suits to get these issues adjudicated against
the affected persons but failed in their attempt to get
these issues adjudicated. In other words, by the time
the original holders (three PATIL) approached the
31
Civil Court, their all rights in the suit land itself got
extinguished on account of efflux of time (31 years)
as has been held supra.
81) It is for these reasons also, we are of the view
that the appellants have no case.
82) In our view, therefore, the High Court was right
in its reasoning and the conclusion in holding that
the original holders (three PATIL) having lost all their
rights, title and interest in the suit land on the expiry
of 12 years from the date of re-grant in their favour
(assuming the re-grant to be valid) in 1985 and
secondly, they again lost their ownership rights due
to dismissal of their two suits (O.S. Nos. 364 and 365
of 2004) on 23.11.2004, neither the original holders
(three PATIL) and nor the appellants, who claimed
through original holders, had any right to claim any
interest in the suit land.
32
83) In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that looking at the issues involved
in this case from any angle, these appeals have no
merits. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly
dismissed.
.………………………………..J
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
 ..………………………………J.
 (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
New Delhi,
May 03, 2018
33

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.

Medical Council of India (MCI) issued the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018. = It is clear from the record that the Medical Council of India decided to make certain changes to the method of admissions to the Postgraduate Courses to arrest the blocking of seats by certain candidates which was detrimental to the interest of meritorious candidates in the All India Quota. There is material on record to suggest that devious methods were adopted by certain candidates to block the seats in the All India Quota and resign thereafter from those seats later which resulted in reversion of the All India Quota seats to the State Quota. The Medical Counselling Committee identified about thousand candidates who were indulging in such illegal practice and proposes to take action against them after a thorough inquiry. 8. There is no infringement of any legal right of the Petitioners in the change of the method of Counselling made by the notice dated 09.04.2018. Reduction of chances of admission does not entail in violation of any right. If the change in the method of Counselling was due to the circumstances mentioned above, we see no reason to interfere. Further, the Petitioners have participated in the second round of Counselling for up-gradation. We are informed that the second round of Counselling for All India Quota is completed. No interference is warranted at this stage in respect of the All India Quota. In view of the completion of the second round of Counselling of the All India Quota, we see no reason to entertain the Writ Petitions. The order dated 20.04.2018, staying the reversion of seats from the All India Quota to the State Quota is vacated. According to the schedule for online Counselling, the second round of Counselling of the State Quota should be completed by 26.04.2018. The second round of State Counselling has to be conducted after taking into account the reverted seats on completion of the second round of the All India Quota. We are informed that some States and Deemed/Central Institutions completed the second round of Counselling without waiting for the reversion of the unfilled seats in the second round of Counselling of the All India Quota. As this could not have been done, we direct that such States and Deemed/Central Institutions shall conduct the second round of Counselling again after reversion of the unfilled seats in the second round of Counselling of the All India Quota. As we have vacated the order dated 20.04.2018, the concerned authority will report the unfilled seats in the second round of the All India Counselling to the respective States by 05.05.2018. The second round of Counselling for the State Quota shall be conducted and completed by 10.05.2018. The Mop-up-round for the State Quota which is scheduled to be 7 completed by 08.05.2018 is extended to 15.05.2018.

Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (C) No. 357 of 2018
RACHIT SINHA & ORS.
………PETITIONER (S)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
……..RESPONDENT (S)
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 361 of 2018
Writ Petition (C) No.366 of 2018
Writ Petition (C) No.424 of 2018
O R D E R
1. By a Notification dated 20.02.2018, the Medical Council of India
(MCI) issued the Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment)
Regulations, 2018. The admission schedule for the year
2018-2019 as per the said Regulations is as follows:-
Sr. No. Schedule for
Admission
Central
Counselling
State Counselling
All India Quota Deemed +
Central Institute
1 Conduct of
Exam
By 10th January
2 Declaration of
Result
By end of January
3 1
st Round of
Counselling
12th March –
24th March,
12th March –
24th March,
25th March –
5
th April
4 Last date of
joining
3
rd April, 3
rd April 12th April
5 2
nd round of
counselling
6
th April –
12 April
6
th April –
12th April
15th April –
26th April
6 Last date of
joining
22nd April 22nd April 3
rd May
7 Mop up Round 12th May – 4
th May –
1
22nd May 8
th May
8 Late date of
joining
26th May 12th May
9 Forwarding the
list of students
in order of merit
equalling to ten
times the
number of
vacant seats to
the Medical
Colleges by the
Counselling
Authority.
27th May 13th May
10 Last date of
joining
31st May 18th May
2. The first round of Counselling of All India Quota was completed on
07.04.2018. We are informed that the first round of Counselling
for the State quota was also completed in the first week of April,
2018. The process for the second round of Counselling for the All
India Quota commenced on 13.04.2018 and the last date for
reporting was 23.04.2018. Admission to Postgraduate Courses,
according to the Regulations, is on the basis of the merit of the
candidates in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-PG)
conducted every year. 50 per cent of the seats are earmarked for
All India Quota and the remaining 50 per cent for the State Quota.
3. On 05.04.2018, a Notification was issued by the Medical Council
of India by which Clause 9A(4) was added to the Postgraduate
Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which is in the following
terms:-
“9A(4) In order to prevent seat blocking in common Counselling
for admission to Postgraduate Courses and permissibility to
exercise fresh choice during Counselling, forfeiture of fee shall be
in accordance with the matrix contained in appendix-III.”
2
4. A notice dated 09.04.2018 was issued by Medical Counselling
Committee (MCC) which conducts the Counselling for the All India
Quota in which it was clarified that a candidate who had
participated in the first round of Counselling and was allotted a
seat but did not report can participate for the second round of
Counselling as per their earlier registered details. It was also
mentioned in the said notice that the candidates who reported
after the first round of Counselling but resigned from the allotted
Institutions were also eligible to participate in the second round of
Counselling without any fresh registration/payment. The
candidates were further informed that candidates who joined in
the allotted seats after the first round of Counselling but could not
get up-gradation in the second round of Counselling shall be
allowed to resign from the first round seat within two days from
the publication of the second round results of the All India Quota
with forfeiture of fees.
5. The Petitioners in the above Writ Petitions who participated in the
first round of Counselling for the All India Quota seats for
admission to the Postgraduate Courses in medicine are aggrieved
by the changes that are made in the method of Counselling by the
notice dated 09.04.2018. The grievance of the Petitioners is that
candidates who were ineligible for the second round of
3
Counselling according to the earlier procedure were made eligible
as per the notice dated 09.04.2018. Another complaint of the
Petitioners pertains to permission granted to the allottees in the
first round of Counselling to retain their seats for two days after
the announcement of results of the second round of Counselling.
The Petitioners’ complained of their being forced to resign from
their allotted seats in the first round of Counselling.
6. By an order dated 20.04.2018, we permitted the Petitioners to
retain the seats allotted to them in the first round of Counselling.
We also stayed the reversion of the seats from the All India Quota
to the State Quota. The procedure followed for admission to
Postgraduate Courses is that there will be two rounds of
Counselling for the All India Quota. At the end of second round of
Counselling, the seats that are unfilled will be reverted to the
State Quota. The first round of the All India Quota is conducted
on the basis of merit of the candidates in the NEET-PG exam.
Doubts are expressed by several candidates regarding the
eligibility of candidates to participate in the second round of
Counselling for the All India Quota. Such doubts are cleared by
the Medical Council of India by providing answers to the
frequently asked questions. Candidates who could not secure any
seat in the first round as well as those who have secured
admission in the first round, reported/joined in the allotted
4
Institutions and submitted their willingness for participating in the
second round were eligible for the second round of Counselling.
Candidates who did not report at the allotted Institutions after the
seat allotment in the first round and those who reported and
withdrew (resigned) from Counselling at the allotted Institutions
were not eligible for the second round of Counselling. In addition,
candidates who did not opt for up-gradation and those who
became ineligible due to change of category were also not
permitted to participate in the second round of Counselling. This
was the practice followed at the time of issuance of the
Notification for admission to the Postgraduate Courses for
2018-2019. The change made by the notice dated 09.04.2018
are to the effect that even if a candidate is allotted a seat in the
first round but did not report, he would be entitled to participate
in the second round of Counselling. A candidate who had
reported but resigned was also made eligible to participate in the
second round of Counselling, contrary to the position that existed
prior to 09.04.2018. According to the Petitioners, the competition
for the second round of Counselling would increase as the above
two categories of candidates who were not eligible to participate
in the second round of Counselling earlier were permitted to
compete for admissions in the second round of Counselling. They
contend that this change should not have been made after the
5
commencement of admissions for this year.
7. It is clear from the record that the Medical Council of India
decided to make certain changes to the method of admissions to
the Postgraduate Courses to arrest the blocking of seats by
certain candidates which was detrimental to the interest of
meritorious candidates in the All India Quota. There is material
on record to suggest that devious methods were adopted by
certain candidates to block the seats in the All India Quota and
resign thereafter from those seats later which resulted in
reversion of the All India Quota seats to the State Quota. The
Medical Counselling Committee identified about thousand
candidates who were indulging in such illegal practice and
proposes to take action against them after a thorough inquiry.
8. There is no infringement of any legal right of the Petitioners in the
change of the method of Counselling made by the notice dated
09.04.2018. Reduction of chances of admission does not entail in
violation of any right. If the change in the method of Counselling
was due to the circumstances mentioned above, we see no
reason to interfere. Further, the Petitioners have participated in
the second round of Counselling for up-gradation. We are
informed that the second round of Counselling for All India Quota
is completed. No interference is warranted at this stage in
respect of the All India Quota.
6
9. In view of the completion of the second round of Counselling of
the All India Quota, we see no reason to entertain the Writ
Petitions. The order dated 20.04.2018, staying the reversion of
seats from the All India Quota to the State Quota is vacated.
According to the schedule for online Counselling, the second
round of Counselling of the State Quota should be completed by
26.04.2018. The second round of State Counselling has to be
conducted after taking into account the reverted seats on
completion of the second round of the All India Quota. We are
informed that some States and Deemed/Central Institutions
completed the second round of Counselling without waiting for
the reversion of the unfilled seats in the second round of
Counselling of the All India Quota. As this could not have been
done, we direct that such States and Deemed/Central Institutions
shall conduct the second round of Counselling again after
reversion of the unfilled seats in the second round of Counselling
of the All India Quota. As we have vacated the order dated
20.04.2018, the concerned authority will report the unfilled seats
in the second round of the All India Counselling to the respective
States by 05.05.2018. The second round of Counselling for the
State Quota shall be conducted and completed by 10.05.2018.
The Mop-up-round for the State Quota which is scheduled to be
7
completed by 08.05.2018 is extended to 15.05.2018.
Writ Petition (C) No.424 of 2018
In I.A. No.62831 of 2018 in W.P. (C) No.357 of 2018, no order is
required to be passed in view of fact that some of the Applicants
have filed Writ Petition (C) No.424 of 2018 for the same relief. Writ
Petition (C) No.424 of 2018 is disposed off in terms of the order in
Writ Petition (C) No.357 of 2018.
 ........................................J.
 [S.A. BOBDE]

 ........................................J.
 [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
3
rd May, 2018.
8