AI Insights
The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by candidates who participated in the Senior Teacher Competitive Examination conducted by the RPSC. The petitions challenged the revised answer keys and the resultant merit list, alleging errors in the evaluation process. The RPSC had initially published answer keys, invited objections, and subsequently revised the keys based on the expert committee's recommendations. The petitioners argued that the revised keys were still incorrect and sought re-evaluation. The court, after examining the submissions and the expert committee's reports, dismissed the petitions, affirming the RPSC's process and decisions.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742622 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
05-05-2018
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3083 / 2018 Rameshvri Kumari D/o Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident of Kharad, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Through Its Secretary., Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3016 / 2018 Dariya Kumari D/o Shri Hardana Ram Meghwal, W/o Shri Hemant Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste- Meghwal, Resident of 84, A Block, Ramdev Colony, Tehsil- Jalore, District- Jalore (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 2. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Director (Secondary), Education, Education Directorate, Bikaner. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3107 / 2018 1. Mula Ram S/o Shri Chetan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Village & Post Dandanli, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer. 2. Heera Ram S/o Shri Anda Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Suthar, R/o Village & Post Dandanli, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer. 3. Girdhari Lal S/o Shri Kheta Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Nai, R/o Village & Post Dongari, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3140 / 2018 Bhunda Ram S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Prajapat, R/o Village Khuntaliya, Post Haryada, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur (RAJ) (Roll No. 842664) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (RAJ) 3. The Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner (RAJ) ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3240 / 2018 1. Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Achlaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jhadoli, Tehsil Pindwada, District Sirohi (Raj.). 2. Nisha Rani Gurjar D/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ghabhai, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village & Post Kemri, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karoli (Raj.). 3. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radhryshyam Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village & Post Khemawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 4. Rajendra Prasad Bairwa S/o Shri Narayan Bairwa, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Lakhanpur, Post Chaundiyawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). 5. Rajnish Godara S/o Shri Manphool Godara, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village & Post Kakadwala, Tehsil Lunkaransar, District Bikaner (Raj.). 6. Vijendra Puniya S/o Shri Samdarram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Khudera Chota, Post Khudera Bada, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu (Raj.). 7. Jandel Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village & Post Tarsuma, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 8. Rajiram Sansi S/o Shri Krishan Ram Sansi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Kesar Desar, Post Khonda, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). 9. Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Mundli, Post Raital, Tehsil Mangarol, District Baran (Raj.). 10. Manmohan Singh S/o Shri Narendra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Danwara, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur (Raj.). 11. Navodita Kumari D/o Shri Parsuram Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Jhalatala, Post Moloni, Tehsil Ber, District Bharatpur (Raj.). 12. Sunita Sharma D/o Shri Rajkumar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bhuribhadaj, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.). 13. Roshni D/o Shri Jagdish Gar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Masitawali, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (Raj.). 14. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Tilokaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Nandoli Mendtiya, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.). 15. Rampratap S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ranyawali, District Ganganagar (Raj.). 16. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village & Post Rujiyabadawas, Tehsil Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.). 17. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Pritiviraj, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Rampura Nyola, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Ganganagar (Raj.). 18. Umesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Premchandra Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ramsagar, Post Nagar Fort, Tehsil Duni, District Tonk (Raj.). 19. Jainarayan Upadhyaya S/o Shri Bhagwanaram Upadhayaya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gajner Road, Near Chungi Naka, Bheruji Temple, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.). 20. Pannaram S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ahoni Beniwali Ki Dhani, Madhasar, Panchayat Samiti Baytu, District Barmer (Raj.). 21. Daljeet Singh S/o Shri Ramesh Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Khedla Janedpur, Tehsil Vajirpur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). 22. Gopi Chand S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Pareek, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Gadana, Post Post Ganjuwas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.). 23. Pritam Singh S/o Shri Jagsir Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 73LNP, Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Padampur, District Ganganagar (Raj.). 24. Ghanshyam Dan Ratnu S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village & Post Dasodi, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.). 25. Prahlad Kumawat S/o Shri Shankarlal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village & Post Desalsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.). 26. Naresh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village & Post Dai, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.). 27. Anisha Shekh D/o Shri Yasin Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 45, Canal Block, Near Moti Palace, Chand Kangan Store, Koda Chowk, Purani Abadi, Sriganganagar (Raj.). 28. Manish Kumar S/o Puranchand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village & Post Kaliyan, District Sriganganagar (Raj.). 29. Shivprakash S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sector No. 12 Hanumangarh Junction (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 2. All the Affecting Selected Candidates Through the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Ajmer (Raj.). 3. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (Raj.). 4. The State of Rajasthan Through the Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3304 / 2018 Pawan Kumar Pareek S/o Shri Chhagan Lal Pareek, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident of Rajaldesar, Tehsil- Ratangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 2. State of Rajasthan Through, Director (Secondary), Education, Education Directorate, Bikaner. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3325 / 2018 Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Kodar Ji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village & Post Akhepanji Ka Gara, District Banswara, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3484 / 2018 Manbhawna D/o Jag Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Vada Bhadvi, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3505 / 2018 Suraj Kanwar Chundawat D/o Shri Girdhari Singh Chundawat, Aged About 28 Years, Byecaste Chundawat, R/o F-337, New Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary. 2. Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3732 / 2018 Sonam Choudhary D/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, Anupgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary, Ajmer. 3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3733 / 2018 Baga Ram S/o Shri Malla Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dabaliya Vishnawal, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary, Ajmer. 3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3806 / 2018 Poona Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Shivpura, Raydhanu Distt. Nagaur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through- The Secretary, Department Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) Though Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3817 / 2018 1. Amar Ram S/o Shri Pokar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Motaniya Nagar, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 2. Uma Kanwar Deora D/o Shri Dhan Singh Deora, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sanisar Jee Ki Gali, Village- Post Khiwandi, Tehsil Sumerpur, Pali, Rajasthan. 3. Rohini Solankiya D/o Shri Jeevan Nath Solnkiya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 11, Shiv Gauraksha Sadan, Near Pal Ship Gram, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. Indira D/o Shri Nanak Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 244, Roop Nagar- II, Backside of Sai Dham Temple, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 5. Anju Rajpurohit D/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Rajpurohit, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 173, Ajjet Colony, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through, Secretary, Ajmer. 3. Deputy Secretary, RPSC, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3854 / 2018 1. Champa Lal Paliwal S/o Shri Leela Dhar Paliwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Hopardi, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 2. Sonu Sharma S/o Shri Radhe Shyam, R/o VPO Pharsewala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3980 / 2018 Krishan Gopal S/o Prakash Chand, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No 4, Chandani Chauk, Gali No 1, Purani Abadi, Shri Ganganagar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary of Education, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4284 / 2018 Mamta Solanki D/o Shri Ramchandra Solanki, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste- Solanki, R/o 59, Malveer Nagar, Bhinmal, District- Jalore (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary. 2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4390 / 2018 Bajarang Ram ----Petitioner Versus State & Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5041/ 2018 Sunil s/o Shri Babu Lal, b/c Bishnoi, aged 25 years, r/o Post Phitkasni, V/P Saran Nagar, Tehsil & District Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer through its Secretary. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4170/ 2018 Mahendra Singh Chouhan s/o Bheru Singh Chouhan, age about 28 years, b/c Rajput, r/o Nai Basti Kundali, Post – Karakala, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3622 / 2018 Mahesh Kumar Regar S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Regar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sangariya, Tehsil Phooliya Kallan, District Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer Through Its Secretary., Ajmer. 2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5082 / 2018 Arvind Kumar Salvi S/o Shri Nagendra Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Salvi Basti, Bhanda, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4789 / 2018 Himmat Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Via Kushalpur, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur , Rajasthan 2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan ----Respondents Reportable ____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.R. Mehta, Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. Bharat Devasi, Mr. H.R. Vishnoi, Mr. Kan Singh Oad, Mr. Tribhuwan Singh, Mr. Manoj Pareek, Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi, Mr. M.S. Godara, Mr. Kuldeep Mathur with Mr. Vinod Choudhary, Mr. Ravi Panwar, Mr. V.N. Kalla, Mr.Roshan Lal and Mr.R.S.Kumpawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi assisted by Mr. Khet Singh & Mr. Vikas Joshi for RPSC Mr. Rajendra Singh for Mr. B.L. Bhati, GC _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Judgment Reserved on 16/04/2018 Pronounced on 05/05/2018 1. Vexed by the evaluation of the answer scripts and the consequential determination of merit by the respondents culminating into issuance of the provisional select list, pertaining to the recruitment process initiated by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (henceforth to be referred to as ‘the Commission/respondent-Commission), vide advertisement dated 13.07.2016, for recruitment to the post of Senior Teachers in various Subjects by conducting Senior Teacher Competitive Examination, 2016 under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, the instant writ petitions preferred by some of the candidates, who have participated in the said recruitment process, register a challenge thereto. 2. The striking identicalness in the challenge and the substantial similitude of the contextual facts constituting the edifice of the lis in all material particulars, coupled with the reliefs claimed herein, permits analogous adjudication of the present writ petitions. Therefore, in light of the commonality of the impeachment, as projected in these writ petitions, they have been analogously heard and this common adjudication would answer the surging debate, so as to bring the present controversy to an end. 3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs: “A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Revised Answer Key dated 03.02.2018 and 06.02.2018 (Annex-7) and Result dated 06.02.2018 (Annex.8) for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) may kindly be quashed and set aside in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 (Annex-2). B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue afresh expert committee report and answer key while considering the questions/objections submitted by the petitioners as per the authentic books in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science). C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-determine the complete merit list/result for further selection process while making the necessary corrections in the revised answer key for the questions quoted aforesaid of Paper-I i.e. General Knowledge and Paper-II i.e. Social Science for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to award the actual marks to the petitioners for their correct answer as per their authentic proofs of the question quoted above of the Paper-I i.e. General Knowledge and Paper-II i.e. Social Science for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioners in the further selection and provide appointment on the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) in their respective category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 with all consequential benefits, if, they found selected in revised merit. F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 4. Since the skeletal account of the facts portrayed by the rival versions and construed to be germane, falls in a narrow compass, and to reiterate, nothing turns on the facts with fringe differences in the present writ petitions and in course of the arguments as well, no marked distinguishable features have been highlighted warranting individual analysis thereof, therefore the pleaded facts would be recited, in bare essentials, from the pleadings of some of the petitions collectively, keeping in view the present adjudication. 5. To start with, the respondent-Commission issued an advertisement dated 13.07.2016 for the posts of Senior Teacher in various Subjects. The Commission has, for that purpose, invited the online application forms from the eligible candidates for the post in question, in accordance with the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1971. 6. The petitioners, being eligible and possessing the requisite qualifications, applied for the said post in their respective categories by way of filling the online application forms. Subsequent thereto, the admit cards were issued to the respective candidates. The petitioners, thereafter, appeared in the related examinations, so conducted by the respondents, as per the schedule. 7. Out of the various papers, comprised in the examination in question, the present impugnment pertains to the papers, namely, Paper-I (General Knowledge-I) and Paper II (Subject Paper-Sanskrit, Hindi) and; Paper-I (General Knowledge-II and Paper-II (Subject Paper Social Science), in totality. 8. The respondents earlier issued the answer key for the Paper of General Knowledge on 21.08.2017 and for the Papers of Social Science and Sanskrit on 30.08.2017, and for the Paper of Hindi on 01.09.2017, wherein the answers of all the questions, in the respective subjects, have been mentioned. 9. Thereafter, on 21.08.2017, the Commission has also issued a Press Note pertaining to the answer key dated 21.08.2017 uploaded by the Commission on its website, whereby objections were invited from the concerned candidates, who have appeared in the examination on 26.04.2017 and 01.05.2017 in G.K. Paper-I; the said objections were to be submitted, as per the said Press Note, from 23.08.2017 to 25.08.2017. Another Press Note came to be issued by the Commission on 30.08.2017 regarding the answer key dated 30.08.2017 uploaded on the website of the Commission, whereby objections were invited from the concerned candidates who appeared in the examination held on 30.06.2017, 01.07.2017 and 02.07.2017 in the Subjects of Sanskrit, Science and Social Science; the said objections were to be submitted, as per the said Press Note, from 31.08.2017 to 02.09.2017. 10. The aforementioned Press Notes dated 21.08.2017 and 30.08.2017 read as under:- “jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj &% izsl &uksV %& fnukad 21-08-2017 vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 26-04-2017 o 01-05-2017 dks vk;ksftr ofj\"B v/;kid xzsM f}rh; ijh{kk 2016 ds izFke izz'u i= th-ds- dh mRrjdqaft;ka vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij fnukad 21-08-2017 dks tkjh dj nh x;h gSA mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks mRrj dqath ij dksbZ vkifRr gks rks fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ds lkFk fnukad 23-08-2017 ls fnukad 25-08-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd viuh vkifRr vkWuykbZu vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij ntZ djok ldrk gSA vkifRr;ka vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k iz'u i= ds Øekuqlkj gh izfo\"V djsaA bl ijh{kk ds iz'u i= vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k gSaA vkifRr izkekf.kd ¼Standard Authentic½ iqLrdksa ds izek.k lfgr vkWuykbZu layXu djsaA okafNr izek.k layXu ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkifRr;kas ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr ;fn dksbZ vU; vH;FkhZ vkifÙk ntZ djokrs gSa rks mu ij dksbZ fopkj ugh fd;k tkosxkA vk;ksx }kjk izR;sd iz'u gsrq vkifRr 'kqYd : 100@& fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA vH;FkhZ viuh ,Iyhds'ku vkbZMh tUe frfFk rFkk vk;ksx esa jftLVMZ eksckbZy uEcj ls vk;ksx ds iksVZy ij ykWfxu dj iz'uksa ij vkifRr;ka ntZ djkdj izfr iz'u vkifRr 'kqYd :-100@& ds fglkc ls dqy vkifRr 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku bZ&fe= fd;ksLd vFkok vH;FkhZ Lo;a ds ek/;e ls Hkh iksVZy ij miyC/k isesaV xsVos ds ek/;e ls djokdj vkifRr;ksa dks LFkkbZ :i ls ntZ dj ldrk gSA vk;ksx }kjk 'kqYd okil ykSVkus dk izko/kku ugha gSA 'kqYd ds vHkko esa vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tkosaxhA vkifRr;ka dsoy vkWuykbZu gh izLrqr djsaA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;ksa dk fyad fnukad 23-08-2017 ls fnukad 25-08-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd gh miyC/k gS] mlds i'pkr~ fyad fuf\"Ø; gks tk,xkA vU; fdlh ek/;e ls Hksth xbZ vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tk,axhA vkifRr;ka dsoy ,d ckj gh yh tk,axhA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;kas ds fy, iksVZy rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in/examobjection ;k fyad rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in ij Hkh myiC/k gSa] dks vH;FkhZ fDyd djsA ¼Hkxor flag jkBkSM½ lfpo” “jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj &% izsl &uksV %& fnukad 30-08-2017 vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 30-06-2017] 02-07-2017 dks vk;ksftr ofj\"B v/;kid xzsM f}rh;] laLd`r] foKkku] lkekftd foKku ijh{kk 2016 ds iz'u i=ksa dh mRrjdqaft;ka vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij fnukad 30-08-2017 dks tkjh dj nh x;h gSA mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks mRrj dqath ij dksbZ vkifRr gks rks fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd ds lkFk fnukad 31-08-2017 ls fnukad 02-09-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd viuh vkifRr vkWuykbZu vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij ntZ djok ldrk gSA vkifRr;ka vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k iz'u i= ds Øekuqlkj gh izfo\"V djsaA bl ijh{kk ds iz'u i= vk;ksx dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k gSaA vkifRr izkekf.kd ¼Standard Authentic½ iqLrdksa ds izek.k lfgr vkWuykbZu layXu djsaA okafNr izek.k layXu ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vkifRr;kas ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkosxkA lkFk gh mDr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr ;fn dksbZ vU; vH;FkhZ vkifÙk ntZ djokrs gSa rks mu ij dksbZ fopkj ugh fd;k tkosxkA vk;ksx }kjk izR;sd iz'u gsrq vkifRr 'kqYd : 100@& fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA vH;FkhZ viuh ,Iyhds'ku vkbZMh tUe frfFk rFkk vk;ksx esa jftLVMZ eksckbZy uEcj ls vk;ksx ds iksVZy ij ykWfxu dj iz'uksa ij vkifRr;ka ntZ djkdj izfr iz'u vkifRr 'kqYd :-100@& ds fglkc ls dqy vkifRr 'kqYd dk Hkqxrku bZ&fe= fd;ksLd vFkok vH;FkhZ Lo;a ds ek/;e ls Hkh iksVZy ij miyC/k isesaV xsVos ds ek/;e ls djokdj vkifRr;ksa dks LFkkbZ :i ls ntZ dj ldrk gSA vk;ksx }kjk 'kqYd okil ykSVkus dk izko/kku ugha gSA 'kqYd ds vHkko esa vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tkosaxhA vkifRr;ka dsoy vkWuykbZu gh izLrqr djsaA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;ksa dk fyad fnukad 31-08-2017 ls fnukad 02-09-2017 dks jkf= 12%00 cts rd gh miyC/k gS] mlds i'pkr~ fyad fuf\"Ø; gks tk,xkA vU; fdlh ek/;e ls Hksth xbZ vkifRr;ka Lohdkj ugha dh tk,axhA vkifRr;ka dsoy ,d ckj gh yh tk,axhA vkWuykbZu vkifRr;kas ds fy, iksVZy rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in/examobjection ;k fyad rpsc.rajasthan.gov.in ij Hkh myiC/k gSa] dks vH;FkhZ fDyd djsA ¼fxfjjkt flag dq'kokgk½ lfpo” 11. The objections were submitted by number of candidates regarding the wrong questions and their erroneous answers, in pursuance of the aforequoted press notes, before declaration of the results for the post of Senior Teacher, pursuant to the advertisement year, 2016. 12. After undertaking the aforementioned exercise, the Commission again issued the revised answer key dated 03.02.2018 and 08.02.2018 for the Papers of General Knowledge; for the Subject of Social Science on 06.02.2018; for the Subject of Sanskrit on 14.02.2018 and; for the Subject of Hindi on 15.02.2018, wherein also answers for all the questions were mentioned. However, the petitioners found that the number of answers of the questions were erroneous, whereas, some of the questions were deleted. The Commission, after issuance of the revised answer keys, as above, has not invited objections pertaining thereto and has declared the results of the provisionally selected candidates for the post in question, thereby depriving the petitioners to raise their objections regarding the revised answer keys. 13. While adjudicating the controversy, this Court has made it sure that this Court is granting indulgence of adjudication over and above, the experts opinion, only to the candidates, who were awake to their rights and filed their appropriate objections, in lieu of invitation of the objections called for by the respondents. This Court is also making it categorical that this Court is not evaluating any objection(s), which were not submitted, upon the aforementioned opportunity being granted to the candidates before declaration of the results. 14. After declaration of the results, as aforementioned, the petitioners have again approached the respondents for ventilating their grievances regarding objections pertaining to the aforementioned revised answer key and deletion of certain questions by the Commission, but nothing was done by the respondents, in regard thereto. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that that respondents ought to have remained more careful, while conducting the examination in question, which pertained to the public employment, and thus, should have kept a close watch over the whole process therefor, before declaring the results, and for the purpose of proper evaluation of merit, the respondents should have consulted the authentic text books of the related Subjects, which has not been done in the present case. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that the petitioners secured good marks and have also made it to the cut off marks in their respective categories, but for the irregularities creeping-in in the recruitment process in question, the merit of the petitioners qua other candidates has not been properly evaluated. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that while taking decision to delete certain questions treating the same to be the wrong questions, that were forming part of the Papers, benefit thereof was not given to the concerned candidates, including the present petitioners, who have opted correct answers of such questions, thereby ousting such candidates from the merit list, and thus, for no fault on their part, they have been made to suffer. Therefore, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have made a mockery of the entire selection process, by playing with the future of the educated unemployed youth, aspiring for recruitment to the post in question being fully qualified and eligible to be appointed on the said post. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that by issuing a wrong model answer key, the respondent- Commission has wrongly calculated the marks, that were to be awarded, as proper criteria for awarding negative marks, as per the guidelines for the said examination, was not adhered to. The said irregularity in the examination has thus, culminated in deprivation of the petitioners of their proper placement in the merit list, and their consequential appointment on the post in question, as well. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners also made a submission that once the respondents were given fresh objections by the concerned candidates regarding the answer key so issued earlier and the expert report, on earlier objections, the respondents were under an obligation to reconsider those objections submitted by the concerned candidates, alongwith the authentic proof in support of the answers opted by them. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made a categorical submission that the revised final answer key issued by the Commission is based on erroneous experts opinion, pertaining to the wrong or deleted questions, as the said answer key is not based on the authoritative data, rather contrary to the authentic proofs backed by the authors of repute in the respective field, as submitted by the petitioners alongwith their objections to the earlier answer key, so issued by the respondents. 21. To reinforce their submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in M/s. Utkarsh Classes Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.12720/2011 decided on 25.10.2012), wherein the following order was passed:- “Heard. In the writ petition filed in public interest as against the respondents, prayer has been made to direct them to provide the question paper and OMR sheet to the candidates as soon as the examination is over and disclose the answer key within a period of 7 days from the date of the competitive examination. Prayer has also been made in the writ application for furnishing the syllabus at the time of initiation of selection exercise. In the reply filed by RPSC, it is stated that in every recruitment conducted by the respondent, the candidates are not required to deposit the question papers and in fact, they are allowed to carry question paper with them after the examination. In such cases, there is no question of supply of question papers. Further, complete syllabus is put on website usually at the time the advertisement for appointment is issued. In some cases, where syllabus is not provided on the date of advertisement, it is provided on subsequent date before reasonable time of conduction of the examination. It is further stated that in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497], RPSC held a meeting on 28.06.2012 wherein it was decided to declare a model answer key on its website before declaring the result. This has been decided to negate any ambiguity regarding the correctness of questions and their respective answers. The decision has been taken so as to avoid litigation so that the students are able to adjudge their performance without any hassle and the Court is not burdened with the petitions. In view of the stand of RPSC, learned counsel Dr.P.S.Bhati has submitted that the relief against the RPSC stands satisfied. However, other examinations are also being conducted by the other respondents. They are also bound to follow same procedure. Mr.I.S. Pareek learned counsel appearing for the other respondents has also submitted that they will be publishing the syllabus at the time of initiation of the recruitment process and in any case, in reasonable time well before holding the examination. It is also submitted that in case where the question papers are not provided, they shall supply the question papers and they will put the question papers on website as well as publish model key answers of the objective type questions, on the similar basis as decided by the RPSC in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the submission made by the counsels appearing for the respondents, it is ordered that let in future, the respondents shall supply the syllabus at the time of initiation of recruitment process and shall also put the question papers on website in case, they are not permitted to be carried by the candidates and shall also publish the model key answers of objective type questions, if any, on their website before or at the time of declaration of the result. The writ application is disposed of accordingly.” 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate their submissions, have also relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.698/2013 decided on 25.10.2013), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “45. For the reasons and discussions above as well as in view of the admitted facts and in the light of the material available on record, we have no hesitation in concluding that the respondent – RPSC, failed to maintain the purity and transparency in the selection process in dispute and also failed to ensure that no undeserving candidates gained advantage over the deserving, including the writ petitioners, on account of errors in the questions/answer key while conducting the screening/written examination for the purpose of shortlisting. Further, the respondent- RPSC committed illegality in not revising the initial result of the selected 502 candidates while declaring the result twice over, in view of the deletion of questions. The respondent-RPSC has decided not to revise the result of 502 candidates declared successful in the initial result, even after deletion of more questions which increased in the number of candidates who became eligible for interview, the sole criterion for selection. 46. We are satisfied that the 502 candidates, who were found successful in the initial result, did not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed and this legal position is no more res integra in view of settled position in a catena of decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court. We are also in agreement with the observations of the learned single judge for inclusion of the element of written examination, as an essential component in the process of selection with an interview in the Rules of 1978, in consonance with the views expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a catena of judgments. When grave suspicion is created and is allowed to persist, do precipitate into rumours going around which do not appear of any good either to the candidates or to the administration involved in the process. 47. We are informed that no final merit list has been prepared and published in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. We have been further informed that no appointment orders have been issued to the candidates in the selection process in dispute. Since the purity, propriety and significance of the selection process has been polluted and at the same time undeserving candidates have gained advantage at the cost of deserving candidates including the writ petitioners. Therefore, in the contextual facts and circumstances of the case at hand; the screening/written test conducted by the respondent-RPSC in response to advertisement dated 26 May 2011 for appointment to the post of APP Gr. II, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, the view taken by the learned single judge in quashing the impugned select list dated 2nd February 2013 (ANNEXURE- 5, annexed to the Writ Petition Number 2142 of 2013), cannot be faulted. 48. Defects pointed out by the Registry are hereby overruled. Misc. Application Nos.528/2013 & 561/2013 seeking condonation of delay are allowed for the reasons detailed out in the applications. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.638/2013 is hereby closed in view of the judgment and order passed on the identical issue. 49. In the result, the intra-court appeals are adjudicated upon as under: i) the intra-court appeals preferred by the State of Rajasthan and respondent-RPSC fails and are hereby dismissed. ii) the intra-court appeals filed by the writ petitioners are allowed and disposed of quashing the entire selection process including the screening/written test conducted by the respondent-RPSC on 1st December, 2011, in response to advertisement dated 26 May 2011, for appointment to the post of APP Gr. II as well as the impugned select list dated 2nd February 2013 (ANNEXURE – 5, annexed to the Writ Petition Number 2142 of 2013). iii) The process of selection shall be conducted afresh. iv) The stay applications stand closed. v) No order as to costs.” 23. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Devesh Kumar Sharma (D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.648/2017 decided on 03.05.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under: “7. We have learned Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellants, in the morning and even after recess. 7.1 Before proceeding further, it will not be out of place to mention that the RPSC is in the usual habit of referring the matter to the Expert Committee for key answer and our little experience of this Court is that the maximum service litigant is the RPSC for conducting examinations referring answer key to Expert Committee. We fail to understand, how RPSC comes to this conclusion. When question is framed, why the answer is not fixed. Everywhere in the Country, when the question is referred, the answer key is also submitted to the Public Service Commission. Therefore, this practice itself is required to be deprecated which is followed by the RPSC. How far it is statutorily valid, is required to be viewed very seriously by the Courts. Day in and day out, the RPSC is before this Court and questions are answered in the key answer referred to Expert Committee. It was experience of every member of the Bar and the Bench that the RPSC is acting unconstitutionally and arbitrarily to their permissible limit. 7.2 In that view of the matter, counsel for the appellant was not in a position to defend as to how far the RPSC was following the decision of the Supreme Court while referring the questions of answer key to different Expert Committee and now taking advantage when convenient to them. 7.3 In our considered opinion, we cannot be a party to such a fraud which will lead to corruption for all times to come. Once the decision is taken to refer it to the third Expert Committee, unless it is cancelled by the competent Court or authority to recall the decision of third Expert Committee and to go back to the decision of Expert Committee I and II will lead to cross the permissible limit by the RPSC. . 7.4 We, as member of Division Bench, would not allow the RPSC to travel back to the decision of Expert Committee I and II as per their rule of convenience to refer the question to third committee, though they have referred to third committee which has not been cancelled by the Full Forum of the RPSC. 7.5 It seems that to avoid any observation by the Court in earlier litigation where decision was put before the Court regarding third Expert Committee clearly established that earlier decision in the case of Lakshandra Kumar Sharma Vs. RPSC (supra), the Court has not approved the earlier key answers. In that view of the matter, the opinion of third Expert Committee is substituted by the earlier two Expert Committees. The Courts should not permit the RPSC to blow hot and cold as per their rule of convenience. 7.6 It will not be out of place to mention that lacs of unemployed and poor persons are applying for different posts and this practice by RPSC has ruined career of many persons. Now we hope in view of direction of Division Bench in Narendra Singh Rathore Vs. RPSC (supra), there might be some respite of the youth of the State and country. 7.7 In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge to accept the third view, we are accepting the same. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. 8.1 Even costs of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs. Five lacs) imposed is on lower side in view of the fact that the maximum litigation is of RPSC and public is suffering, therefore, the costs imposed by the learned Single Judge is genuine and the order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed.” 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Devesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr.(S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4867/2017 decided on 25.04.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “This Court need not apply the standard test of demonstrable wrong or palpably wrong as the third panel constituted by the respondent RPSC to ward off all challenge, invarious writ petitions, itself has held that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct and the question is confusing. Thus, question No.56 has been termed by expert panel to be confusing, hence, said question is not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. That being so, there is no other option with this Court but to strike Q.No.56 from the Question Paper. Hence, a direction is issued that the said question No.56 shall be deleted and revised result shall be prepared and declared by the respondent RPSC to end simmering and long standing grievance of the candidates that RPSC is not capable of conducting papers upto the highest standard. Till today, RPSC has conducted more than hundred competitive examinations, for recruitment of various posts. Till today there is not a single examination, where due to challenge made to this Court or Supreme Court, RPSC has not revised the result. Sometimes RPSC has to revise result for more than four times. Each competitive examination open flood gates of litigation, which result into various rounds of litigation. Revised result prepared by expert panel again lead to challenge resulting to rerevision of the result. Time has come for the court to ring alarm bell. Those who are at helm of affairs at RPSC, must now awake from their slumber. They must tread with caution, to select paper setter. The experts selected ought to be persons of eminence. Doling out of favours to incompetent persons as paper setters or experts must end once for all. Taking totality of circumstances and reasons spelt above, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. The cost shall be deposited with the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, within one month, as at instance of RPSC unnecessary unwanted litigation has been generated, leading to filing of numerous writ petitions. Lot of time and energy of this court has been wasted by deciding the writ petitions and the appeals arising therefrom, which could have been avoided, had RPSC ensured highest standards.” 25. Reliance has further been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Rishabh Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7040/2014 decided on 26.06.2014), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “We are not expert in the subject and this of course is an issue for deeper examination by the experts, but as evident from afore-extracted excerpts, the experts in the subject have also not found the equipercentile formula/method free from doubt and have expressed their reservations thereabout. The intention of the university in applying the equipercentile formula was to make up for the difference in the difficulty level of the candidates and from what has been discussed above, this has obviously failed to achieve that purpose. What is more, the examination in question ought to be as per the statutory requirement contained in clause-5 of the MCI Regulations should be based on common standards providing the level playing field to all the candidates, which, in this competitive era, is need of the hour. The different lists/charts produced by the respondent-university indicate that intensity of competition was so high amongst the students that there was tie at almost every second level with number of students securing same marks. With large number of defects and deficiencies in the setting of examination papers, it cannot be said that best among the lot has been selected by mere adoption of the equipercentile formula. In fact, the competition is so stiff that difference of 0.001% could result in lot of change in the inter se merit placement of candidates. When the All India PMT Examination-2014 with as many as 6 lacs candidates could be held on the basis of single question paper by adopting the OMR sheet method, why the common examination cannot be held simultaneously for all the candidates on the basis of a common paper is difficult to approve. As rightly argued by learned Advocate General, holding such examination now would be in conformity with MCI Regulations, 1997 and when the Government upon consideration of all these factors, has taken a conscious decision to hold the examination afresh, its decision cannot be said to be without justification. There is therefore no reason for this Court to find fault with such decision of the Government. Contention that other organizations/ institutions have also adopted the equipercentile formula in the competitive/entrance examination, does not lead us any where because the present matters are being decided on the basis of datas/material placed on record of this case, according to which the equipercentile method has been found to be not suitable to achieve the object of securing uniform evaluation on common standards providing equal playing field to all the candidates. The cited Single Bench judgment of this court in Dr. Vijay Pal Singh, supra, and that of the Division Bench in Dr. Anil Kumawat, supra, upholding the former judgment, being distinguishable on facts, cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as in that case application of equalization through SEP was upheld as an alternative to cancellation of examination due to emergency arising from dysfunctional computers in the main examination. Those judgments neither endorse nor can they be said to approve holding separate examination on the basis of different question papers to secure uniform evaluation of candidate on common standards providing equal opportunity to all the candidates. In view of the above discussion, the process of examination of RPMT-2014 and result thereof declared by the respondent-University on 05.06.2014, being illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, are quashed and set aside. Decision of the Government to hold fresh RPMT Examination is upheld. The respondents, however, are set at liberty to hold fresh RPMT-2014 examination on the basis of application forms already received, with permission of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to suitably modify the calendar of the said examination laid down by their Lordships in the order dated 19.05.2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.737/2013 – Lipika Gupta and Another Vs. Union of India and Others so as to complete the admission process by 30th September, 2014. Accordingly the writ petitions of the petitioners, who remained unsuccessful in the RPMT-2014 examination stand allowed and the writ petitions of the petitioners declared successful, are dismissed. This also disposes of stay applications” 26. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15028/2016 decided on 08.11.2016), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that for the total post of 13098 School Lecturers in the State of Rajasthan more than five lakhs prospective teachers who have obtained education upto Post Graduation and Degree in Education (B.Ed.) have applied. Number of the candidates have already obtained Ph.D. qualification. Therefore, it is not only necessary to ensure quality in the recruitment of teachers, but it also equally imperative that the system of the recruitment of teachers should inspire trust and faith in the residents of State of Rajasthan. To remove any kind of doubt in the mind of prospective candidates, that the system is not fair, it is necessary that sanctity of examination is ensured in the eyes of public at large so as to inspire their trust. It is necessary that RPSC should follow highest standards of the transparency so that name and reputation of RPSC is held in esteem by the candidates and residents of State of Rajasthan. Therefore, this court will reject the submission advanced by Mr. M.F. Baig that answer key given by the experts be kept in sealed cover and the same be not shared with the candidates as there is apprehension that such a course will lead to multiplicity of litigation. The learned counsel has submitted that the RPSC be permitted to keep everything under the wrap till the selection process is completed and result is announced. This Court rejects the argument raised by Mr. M.F. Baig believing in the fairness of the persons at the helm of the affairs at RPSC, as this Court believes that the RPSC has nothing to hide in their cupboard. Transparency not only inspire confidence of the persons in the system but also ensure that merit is only yardstick to which RPSC is committed and RPSC shall make every effort that the teachers are spotted on the touchstone of merit alone. This Court shall follow the maxim that fairness in recruitment should not only be followed but should also appear to have been followed. Therefore, to achieve highest standards of transparency, following directions are issued:- (a) That the revised answer key alongwith report of experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order. (b) That after the needful is done by the RPSC, no objections shall be entertained by RPSC and the revised answer key shall be final and shall be followed by RPSC for computation of the result. (c) That only qua the answer to the question which as per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is unacceptable to the experts having authority in the subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge made to the revised answer key and if two views are possible due credence shall be given to the one view if same is in consonance with the revised answer key approved by the experts. (d) That for a period of fifteen days, after uploading of the revised answer key, the computation of the result shall be kept in abeyance to enable any aggrieved person to approach the court in case revised answer key to a question is palpably wrong and is against all the accepted principles or cannons of the subject. (e) That in pursuance of the selection made, any appointment/posting letter already issued, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen days from receipt of certified copy of this order by RPSC and the State Government. A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. M.F. Baig and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Government Counsel for onward transmission and necessary compliance.” 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner have further substantiated their submissions by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jitender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Haryana Public Service Commission, reported in 2012 SCC Online P&H 15657), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “As stated above, the course adopted by the Commission has resulted in discrimination to many of the aspiring and deserving candidates as in the process of weeding out a small cause of inequality, it has infected the roots of the pious tree of equality which has led to destroying the tree itself. This has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and thus unsustainable. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed with following directions :- (i) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall constitute a Committee of Experts to consider the 151 representations received by the Commission in pursuance to Clause 9 of the booklet of question papers and submit its report to the Commission. Commission shall consider the same and take steps in accordance with the law; (ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission shall publish the answer key of the preliminary examination within a period of three days from today, call for the representations from the candidates within a reasonable time, on receipt thereof, if any, the same be referred to a Committee of Experts, which shall consider these representations and submit its opinion to the Commission which shall thereafter take a decision thereon and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In case, discrepancies are found in the question papers/answer keys as per the report of the Committee of Experts, corrective measures be taken by the Commission and the following be also taken into consideration, i.e. wherever the question(s) in respect of which the option shown to be correct in the answer key is incorrect and instead another option as determined by the Committee of Experts is found to be correct, answer key be corrected. Question(s) in respect of which the answer in the answer key is debatable or question(s) in respect of which there is/are more than one correct option or questions in respect of which none of the options is correct or question(s) which is/are confusing or do not supply complete information for a clear answer, would have to be removed from the purview of examination. In the case of paper of General Studies, answers be evaluated accordingly of all the candidates. However, in the case of optional subjects, the Commission shall have no option but to order re- examination in the said optional paper(s) if discrepancies in question paper(s)/answer key(s) is/are of such a nature where the question(s) is/are to be deleted. The result be thereafter compiled and declared only after the above process is given effect to. The main written examination, which is fixed for 2.9.2012 shall stand postponed till the above exercise is completed by the Commission. Copy of this order be given dasti to Mr. Mehtani, counsel for HPSC under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court.” 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in further reinforcement of their submissions, have relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court at Madurai Bench in J. Antony Clara Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi (Writ Petition (MD) No.13267/2013 decided on 01.10.2013), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “33.This judgment does not help the respondents in any manner, for the reason that first of all that judgment relates to wrong key answers. Secondly, the wrong key answers were applied as against all the candidates. Thus either advantage or disadvantage was uniform to all. But, in the instant case, the wrong questions were only in 'B' series question paper. Unfortunately, except 8000 candidates, around 24 thousand candidates have been benefited with correct question papers. Therefore, either advantage or disadvantage will not be uniform if the above method adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed in the instant case. 34.In view of foregoing discussions, though it will cause some hardship for TRB to conduct re- examination and though the candidates have to once again burn their night oil to prepare for their examination and though it may cause financial burden considerably to the official respondents, on that score this Court cannot allow injustice to be caused to candidates by allowing TRB to value the answer sheets by adopting any one of the methods suggested by the learned Advocate General. I find that ordering for re-examination is the only equitable relief this Court could grant to the parties. 35.I regret that this Court is made to take such a hard line. This Court is able to foresee the hardship and sufferings that the candidates are going to experience. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the candidates who have faired well in the present examination may not do so well in the re- examination and ultimately suffer. All these hardships are, in my considered view, because of the indifferent attitude of TRB, as narrated above. Judiciary, being the institution which has been established under the Constitution to enforce equality and to protect the other rights of the citizens, cannot show any reluctance to take a hard line to order for re- examination. After all, as the English proverb goes, \"one cannot make omlet without breaking few eggs\". 36.In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: (i)The written competitive examination for recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants in Tamil subject held on 21.07.2013 is hereby set aside. (ii)The official respondents, more particularly the Teachers Recruitment Board, is directed to conduct fresh examination as early as possible, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii)For such a fresh examination, fresh hall tickets need not be issued to the candidates. Old Hall Tickets downloaded from the Teachers Recruitment Board Website can be considered as sufficient. (iv)There shall be no fresh calling for applications. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are quashed. gb To 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6. 3.The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6.” 29. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that that the Commission, being a ‘constitutional functionary’, is expected to exercise its power in accordance with law, and also to see that the examinations, particularly the one in question, are conducted in a fool proof manner, so as to avoid any discrepancy or anomaly in the said examination. 30. In refutation of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission submitted that after the examination was over, the respondent-Commission issued a model answer key and invited objections with regard thereto, and upon receipt of the objections so invited from the concerned candidates, the Commission, for the purpose of dealing with such objections in an appropriate manner, constituted an expert committee, which dealt with all those objections with due application of mind, and having found no substance therein, recommended that the answers given in the answer key were correct. Further, wherever the expert committee has found two possible answers to a question, has recommended for deletion of such question(s). 31. So far as one of the grounds raised in the present petitions that the expert committee constituted by the Commission was not comprising of three or more members, and a single member (expert) has been entrusted with the task of examining the correctness of the answers mentioned in the answer key, is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission has submitted that the report of the expert committee, in regard to the different Subjects, which has also been placed for perusal of this Court, revealed that the expert committee was comprising of minimum three, or in some cases, more than three members, and therefore, such ground raised in the present writ petitions has no legs to stand. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has further submitted that the report given by the expert committee deserves paramount consideration, as neither any allegation of malafide or extraneous consideration has been ever raised against any of the members of the expert committee, nor any allegation has been raised against the respondent-Commission by any of the candidates regarding the method adopted in preparing the report by the expert committee, which is fair and transparent. 33. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission further submitted that it is settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Court does not sit in appeal over the report submitted by the expert committee and substitute its own finding setting aside the finding of the expert committee. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Umrav Singh Charan Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14119/2016 decided on 08.02.2017), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners, of course, relied on the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) to drive home the point that the Court was well within its' power under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into the questions and correct answers and in the said case, learned Single Bench directed the R.P.S.C. to make fresh evaluation of the answersheets of the candidates by specific directions for deleting certain questions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeals filed by the State as well as Commission before the Division Bench against the said order and judgment were also dismissed. However, a perusal of Para 10 and 11 of the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & ors. (supra) will show that the respondent – Commission has rather ignored the errors pointed out by the Expert Committee and thereafter, the learned Single Bench on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and submissions made at bar as well as in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land and by High Courts, examined the controversy in a great detail with respect to the allegations of wrong framing of 21 questions, and concluded that four questions should be deleted and answer key in respect of one should be changed. It is important to point out that the said paper was with respect to objective type questions to test the knowledge of law of the candidate. The questions being related to the subject of ‘law’ could not be ignored by the Court, of which subject, the learned Single Judge himself was an expert but the same may not be possible where the courts are not expert on other subjects and therefore, the report of an expert committee comprising of the members being expert of that particular subject cannot be ignored. Hence, the Court cannot sit as an appeal examining body over the report of the expert committee given by experts of that particular subject and cannot replace their own opinion over and above the opinion of the expert on the subject. In fact, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Mukesh Thakur Vs. State of HP & others reported in 2006 (1) Shim. L.C. 134 found inconsistency in framing of the questions relating to the examination in the subject of Civil Law – II and after evaluating, it quashed the result prepared by the commission. However, the matter was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for this court to have intervened and examined the question papers and answer sheets itself, even if these questions pertained to the subject of law, more particularly when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. It would be apt to reproduce the following observations: “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its power to judicially review in the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in the absence of malafide. The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. But once, the expert committee has been formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide, any further interference would only unsettle the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference to the recommendation of the expert committee consisting of able and distinguished experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert committee requires to be given paramount consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous consideration. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere either in the question paper or the answer keys when the correctness of all the questions has been re-examined by the expert committee. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.” The aforequoted judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Court was challenged by the petitioners therein by filing D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.230/2017(Umrav Singh Charan Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.),which too was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2017. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “16. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as the limitation, which has been put by the judicial pronouncement are rightly and aptly accepted by the learned Single Judge. Even the other issues, which has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants have been considered by the learned Single Judge, while relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in H.P.Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. [(2010) 6 SCC 759]. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:- “. . . . . .It would be apt to reproduce the following observations: “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its power to judicially review in the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in the absence of malafide. The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. But once, the expert committee has been formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide, any further interference would only unsettle the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference to the recommendation of the expert committee consisting of able and distinguished experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert committee requires to be given paramount consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous consideration. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere either in the question paper or the answer keys when the correctness of all the questions has been re-examined by the expert committee.” 17. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction of the appellate court, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge declining to exercise the discretion has been rightly done. Even after the expert committee, the view which has been taken for deletion is the call of the day on the given date and it is well known that every opinion put forth on one day, changes on the next day and the learned Single Judge has rightly accepted the same. Even in our opinion, changing the view taken by the learned Single Judge would be bad in law. But ultimately the sufferers are the students and their guardians. 18. Taking into consideration the fact that 13000 teachers are awaiting the government schools, in absence whereof poor students and their guardians are the sufferers. In that view of the matter, to put an end to the controversy, we are opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is required to be accepted and the same is accepted. However, by this order, we are issuing certain directions to the RPSC, which are required to be implemented forthwith. (a) The RPSC will ensure that the answer keys are in place with the help of an expert’s opinion at the time of finalization of the question papers. If the question paper or answer key are found to be erroneous, the person concerned who has prepared the same shall be debarred from the appropriate position of examination at RPSC, and his remuneration shall be stopped. (b) If such person/expert is a government servant then appropriate departmental action shall be initiated against such person for playing with the life of candidates and causing disruption of recruitment process where masses of unemployed youth are participating. Therefore, the RPSC shall have direct responsibility to ensure zero error in the question paperand answer key before letting them out in the public domain. (c) The RPSC shall have take all necessary steps for appointment of the expert committee/person so as to ensure that disputed question papers and Answer Keys giving rise to mass litigation and generating perennial frustration to the unemployed youth is brought down to considerable level. (d) The RPSC itself shall constitute a committee of three of its members who shall study the process being adopted by UPSC and other State PSC and submit a report to this Court within a period of 60 days so as to ensure that the mass disruption of selection process does not take place on account of wrong question papers and wrong answer keys. Such report shall be placed before the concerned Division Bench before being made applicable and if necessary, further orders shall be passed by this Court at that stage. The report shall be implemented thereafter and it is expected that in future, such harassment is not caused to the teaming millions of unemployed youth. 19. We regret that we are dismissing these appeals. But with heavy heart, we have issued the aforesaid directions and hope that in future, the RPSC will not adopt this practice. Hence, the appeals being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed. 20. These appeals are dismissed accordingly.” 34. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has further reinforced his submissions by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors.Vs. RPSC & Ors., reported in 2006(1) CDR 834 (Raj.) (FB), relevant portion of which reads as under:- “19. It has specifically been averred in the written statement that out of disputed questions no question had an incorrect answer or contrary to the correct answer given in the standard books as mentioned by the petitioners/other candidates. 20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the key answers provided by the respondent-Commission for evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were wrong or that despite there being a report by the Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the exercise of finding out as to whether the key answers are correct or wrong. There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the key- answers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the propose. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects for which the question paper written statement settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon recognized text books authored by persons of repute in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that the members constituting the Committee did not know or had no specialization in the concerned subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while urging that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being urged is that in some of the recognized test book or books of repute, different answers of the concerned questions have been provided. Assuming what has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, it would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and other re-evaluation of the answer sheets. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has made a submission that the decision of the Commission, based on the recommendation and advice of the expert committee, constituted for that purpose, is not open to challenge. 35. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has thus made out a case that the Commission conducted the examination in question by adopting a procedure, which is fair and transparent, based on advice of experts at various levels. The candidates were given opportunity to raise their objections against the answer keys, thus ruling out the possibility of mistakes, making the system interactive and responsive. The contention of the petitioners that the answer keys provided by the expert were incorrect, is based on self evaluation of the petitioners, which is not legally tenable. The opinion of the expert is final and beyond judicial review. In totality, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission makes out a case that evaluation of answer scripts is the job of experts. 36. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar. 37. The questions arises for consideration of this Court is whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can sit in appeal over the report given by the expert committee and substitute its own finding in place of the opinion of the expert committee, pertaining to the evaluation of the answer scripts of the examination for public employment. 38. Before entering into the merits of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in regard to the faulty answer keys, we propose to first deal with the contention of the respondents regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters. 39. Leading precedent law, in this series, is Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors., reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309, wherein, the question arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was to the effect that if a paper- setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper- setter to the University as the correct answer? In the case before the Supreme Court, the questions were multiple choice objective type and the candidates were required to exercise choice in respect of one correct answer out of the four alternatives, as in the case at hand. 40. The relevant portion of the judgment in Kanpur Univesity & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (supra) reads as under: “ . . . . . .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 well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. . . . . . . . Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. . . . . . . . .” 41. The Hon’ble Apex Court, recently, in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, has laid down the precedent law regarding the scope of judicial view in the matters pertaining to the recruitment process, while referring the law laid down in Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (supra) amongst other precedent laws. 42. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) is reproduced, in extenso, as hereunder:- “What a mess! This is perhaps the only way to describe the events that have transpired in the examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. We have reached the present stage of judgment after eight long years of uncertainty for, and three evaluations of the answer sheets of, more than 36,000 candidates who took the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers way back in January 2009. Hopefully today, their travails, as those of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board, will come to a satisfactory end. 2. On 15-1-2009 the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (for short “the Board”) published an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science. The recruitment was to be in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder. 3. More than 36,000 candidates took the written examination held pursuant to the advertisement and the result of the written examination was declared by the Board on 18-6-2010. It may be mentioned that the written examination was based on multiple-choice answers which were to be scanned on OMR sheets. 4. The candidates who qualified in the written examination were called for an interview held between 16-7-2010 and 26-7-2010. Eventually, the combined result (written examination and interview) was declared on 14-9-2010. According to the appellants, they were successful in the written examination as well as in the interview and were amongst those who were in the select list for recruitment. 5. Some candidates who were not successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and 2011. All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The reasons for dismissal of these writ petitions were that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. Reliance was also placed by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petitions on the decision of this Court in H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] in which this Court considered a large number of its earlier decisions and held: (SCC p. 767, para 26) “26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation.” 6. Another batch of writ petitions (having 77 writ petitioners) came to be listed before another learned Single Judge of the High Court. The subject and issues were the same and the learned Single Judge admitted these writ petitions for final hearing notwithstanding the dismissal of several similar petitions. The challenge made by the writ petitioners was to seven questions/answers in the written examination which, according to them, had incorrect key answers. The learned Single Judge personally examined those seven questions and concluded [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] that: (Ranjeet Kumar case [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] , SCC OnLine All para 42) “(a) The correct answer of Question 24 in History paper would be Option (1). (b) For Question 25, History paper, Option (2) is correct. (c) Option (2) is the correct answer of Question 36 of History paper. (d) Option (2) is the correct answer in respect to Question 37 of History paper. (e) Question 40 of History paper is wrongly framed. (f) In Question 43, there may be two correct answers i.e. Options (1) and (3). (g) In Question 32 of Civics paper, Option (3) would be the correct answer.” The learned Single Judge then proceeded to observe: (SCC OnLine All para 54) “54. … It cannot be doubted that being a selection body for appointment of Teachers in Secondary Schools, the Selection Board was under a pious as well as statutory obligation to hold selection very carefully, meticulously and in the most honest and correct manner. The job of Selection Board could not have been completed by mere holding a selection without caring whether examination is being conducted correctly and properly, whether all the questions have been framed in a proper manner, whether the answer(s), if it is multiple- choice examination, have been given with due care and caution so as to leave no scope of error or mistake therein, etc. In fact, if such a mistake is committed, it causes a multi-edged injury to an otherwise studious, intelligent and well conversant student who understands the subject, well knows the relevant details and correct answers but suffers due to sheer negligence of the examining body. The obligation of the examining body cannot be allowed to whittle out in any manner for any reason whatsoever. For the fault of the examining body, a candidate cannot be made to suffer.” 7. On this basis, the learned Single Judge passed a judgment and order dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] directing re-examination of the answer sheets of these 77 writ petitioners. It was further directed that in case these writ petitioners are selected then those at the bottom of the select list would automatically have to be pushed out. 8. It must be recorded that the learned Single Judge did refer to and cited several decisions of this Court on the subject of re-evaluation but unfortunately did not appreciate the law laid down. The learned Single Judge relied on Manish Ujwalv. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University [Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744] but failed to appreciate that the six disputed answers under consideration in that case were demonstrably wrong and this was not in dispute and even the learned counsel appearing for the University did not question this fact. The decision is clearly distinguishable on facts. 9. Be that as it may, the issue that remained in Manish Ujwal [Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744] was of the appropriate orders to be passed. While considering this, the following cautionary measures were suggested: (SCC p. 748, para 10) “10. … 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 favour of the students.” 10. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Board preferred Special Appeal No. 442 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court. Some candidates also preferred special appeals directed against the judgment and order dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] . The special appeal filed by the Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 13-3-2012 [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 4494] . In some other special appeal filed by a candidate, it was stated by the Board on 11-4-2012 that the answer sheets of all the candidates would be re-evaluated in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 11. Following up on this, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was implemented on 10-9-2012 and the re-evaluated results of the written examination of all candidates were declared. As a result of the re-evaluation, it appears that some candidates, who were declared successful in the combined result declared on 14- 9-2010 were now declared unsuccessful. The appellants before us were not affected by the re- evaluation of the written examination and continued in the select list. 12. Thereafter, a set of petitions was filed including some before this Court and eventually it came to pass that those aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench on 13-3-2012 [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 4494] could file review petitions. 13. On 12-5-2014 the Board published the final select list of candidates who had qualified in the written examination as well as in the interview. In this final select list, the appellants did not find a place and, therefore, they challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8-2-2012 [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] . According to the appellants the learned Single Judge had incorrectly re-evaluated the seven disputed questions and had arrived at incorrect answers to these questions. 14. The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as the appeals and passed an order dated 28-4-2015 [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 9066] referring the seven disputed questions/answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. On or about 18-5-2015 the Expert Committee gave its report to which the appellants filed objections. Eventually, by the judgment and order dated 2-11-2015 [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 : (2016) 3 All LJ 405] the Division Bench directed a fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee. This decision of the Division Bench is under challenge before us. 15. During the pendency of the appeals in this Court, the third re-evaluation was completed by the Board. The result of the third re-evaluation has been kept in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was initially filed before us but later returned to the learned counsel for the Board. 16. We are pained that an examination for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers advertised in January 2009 has still not attained finality even after the passage of more than eight years. The system of holding public examinations needs to be carefully scrutinised and reviewed so that selected candidates are not drawn into litigation which could go on for several years. Be that as it may, we have still to tackle the issues before us. 17. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re-evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] which considered several decisions on the subject and held: (SCC p. 765, para 20) “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court—the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. 19. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] this Court took the view that: (SCC p. 316, para 16) “16. … 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 well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.” In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) establishing a system of moderation; (ii) avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it. 20.Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] is perhaps the leading case on the subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 which reads: (SCC p. 37, para 10) “104. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a subject.—(1) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book and whether the supplements attached to the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No re-evaluation of the answer book or supplements shall be done. (2) Such an application must be made by the candidate through the head of the junior college which presented him for the examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10 for each subject. (3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to re- evaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential.” 21. The question before this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case[Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] was: whether, under law, a candidate has a right to demand an inspection, verification and re-evaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void. 22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court [Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, 1980 SCC OnLine Bom 148 : AIR 1981 Bom 95] , while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided them into two groups: (i) cases where a right of inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) cases where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as unreasonable and void and directed the Board concerned to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to the second group of cases, it was held that the above Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of re-evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who had applied for it. 23. In appeal against the decision [Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, 1980 SCC OnLine Bom 148 : AIR 1981 Bom 95] of the High Court, it was held by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was held that: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p. 38, para 12) “12. … The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.” 24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court held [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra vires the rule-making power conferred by statute. It was then said: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case[Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p. 42, para 16) “16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution. None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present case.…” It was also noted by this Court that: (SCC p. 52, para 22) “22. … the High Court has ignored the cardinal principle that it is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the legislature or its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of discussion that the impugned regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy enunciated therein does not meet with the approval of the Court in regard to its efficaciousness for implementation of the object and purposes of the Act.” 25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this Court then proceeded on the basis of the plain and simple language of the Regulation to hold that: (Paritosh Bhupeshkumar case [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] , SCC p. 48, para 20) “20. … The right of verification conferred by clause (1) is subject to the limitation contained in the same clause that no revaluation of the answer books or supplements shall be done and the further restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting disclosure or inspection of the answer books.” This Court then concluded the discussion by observing: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) “29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.” 26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] the question under consideration was whether the High Court [Bihar Public Service Commission v. Pramod Kumar Srivastava, 2003 SCC OnLine Pat 398 : (2003) 2 PLJR 801] was right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of a candidate in the absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask for re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no provision in the Rules concerned for re-evaluation but only a provision for scrutiny of the answer book “wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book”. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava case[Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] , SCC pp. 717-18, para 7) This Court reiterated the conclusion in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that: (SCC p. 718, para 7) “7. … in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued.” 27. The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth[Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] was affirmed in W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das [W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 871 : 5 SCEC 792] and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] , Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda [Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 : 5 SCEC 457] and Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar [Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 : 5 SCEC 719] . 28. The facts in CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava [CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523 : 6 SCEC 109] are rather interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short “CBSE”). Soon after the results of the examination were declared, she applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheets. CBSE declined her request since there was no provision for this. She then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge [Khushboo Srivastava v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 1553] called for her answer sheets and on a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the model or key answers concluded that she deserved an additional two marks. The view of the learned Single Judge was upheld [Khushboo Shrivastava v. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1054 : (2009) 1 PLJR 867] by the Division Bench of the High Court. 29. In appeal, this Court in Khushboo Shrivastava case [CBSE v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523 : 6 SCEC 109] set aside the decision of the High Court and reiterating the view already expressed by this Court from time to time and allowing the appeal of CBSE it was held: (SCC p. 526, paras 9-11) “9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission [Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27] that in the absence of any provision for the re- evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission[Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 883] was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda [Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 : 5 SCEC 457] in which the direction of the High Court for re- evaluation of answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the rules. 10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on the representation of Respondent 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets.… 11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge [Khushboo Srivastava v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 1553] nor the Division Bench [Khushboo Shrivastava v. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Pat 1054 : (2009) 1 PLJR 867] of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. …” 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: ] 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination — whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. 33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 : (2016) 3 All LJ 405] did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. 34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned Single Judge [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] as well as the Division Bench [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 : (2016) 3 All LJ 405] ) ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14-9-2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment. 35. Having weighed the options before us, we are of the opinion that the middle path is perhaps the best path to be taken under the circumstances of the case. The middle path is to declare the third set of results since the Board has undertaken a massive exercise under the directions of the High Court and yet protect those candidates who may now be declared unsuccessful but are working as Trained Graduate Teachers a result of the first or the second declaration of results. It is also possible that consequent upon the third declaration of results some new candidates might get selected and should that happen, they will need to be accommodated since they were erroneously not selected on earlier occasions. 36. The learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that in case her clients are not selected after the third declaration of results, they will be seriously prejudiced having worked as Trained Graduate Teachers for several years. However, with the middle path that we have chosen their services will be protected and, therefore, there is no cause for any grievance by any of the appellants. Similarly, those who have not been selected but unfortunately left out they will be accommodated. 37. As a result of our discussion and taking into consideration all the possibilities that might arise, we issue the following directions: 37.1. The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2-11-2015 [U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P., 2015 SCC OnLine All 5788 : (2016) 3 All LJ 405] of the High Court should be declared by the Board within two weeks from today. 37.2. Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be removed from service but should be allowed to continue. 37.3. Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits. 38. Before concluding, we must express our deep anguish with the turn of events whereby the learned Single Judge [Ranjeet Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 268 : (2012) 4 All LJ 19] entertained a batch of writ petitions, out of which these appeals have arisen, even though several similar writ petitions had earlier been dismissed by other learned Single Judge(s). Respect for the view taken by a coordinate Bench is an essential element of judicial discipline. A Judge might have a difference of opinion with another Judge, but that does not give him or her any right to ignore the contrary view. In the event of a difference of opinion, the procedure sanctified by time must be adhered to so that there is demonstrated respect for the rule of law. 39. With the above directions, the appeals and miscellaneous applications are disposed of.” 43. In H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, which has been referred to in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation, while observing thus: 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543] , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16) “14. … It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. … *** 16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” 44. The Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in academic matters, has laid down the following precedent law in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L. Ramesh, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372: “38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” 45. In the series, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following precedent law in University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde, reportedin (2013) 10 SCC 519: “31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University [(2001) 8 SCC 546 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1] and Rajbir Singh Dalal v.Chaudhary Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] , has taken the view that the court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any “qualifying criteria”, which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 46. The U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram G. Hill, Jr. et al. (437 US 153, 57 L Ed 2d 117, 98 S Ct 2279), in paragraph 15, at page 146, while dealing with the plea of judicial review of reasonableness on Endangered Species Act, pointed out that such was not the function of the court, and observed, “We have no expert knowledge on the subject of endangered species, much less do we have a mandate from the people to strike a balance of equities on the side of the Tellico Dam.\" There is a passage from Robert Bolt about the observations of Sir Thomas More quoted in the said judgment which, in the opinion of this Court, is illuminative and of relevance: \"The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal ........ I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain-sailing, I can't navigate, I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh there I'm a forester..... What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ..... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?.... This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-Man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down.... you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow them?..... Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake\" R. Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, Act I, p. 147 (Three Plays, Heinemann ed 1967).\" This Court is in complete agreement with the lament of Sir Thomas More articulated by Robert Bolt, although the observation made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the aforementioned report is having persuasive value only, and the same is not a binding precedent. 47. Apart from the above, a piquant situation has also arisen in this case that some of the petitioners herein, without any demur or protest to the earlier answer key, by raising their objections in regard thereto, have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking redressal, and therefore, they are now estopped, from questioning the correctness of the answer key, as per the doctrine of constructive res judicata. Therefore, at this belated stage, no relief can be granted to such candidates. 48. The doctrine of constructive res judicata has been engrafted under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is artificial form of doctrine of res judicata and provides that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted to take the plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same subject matter. Thus, it helps in raising the bar by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why, this rule is called ‘constructive res judicata’. 49. The question, for the first time, arose before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1013, whether the concept of constructive res judicata can be applied in the writ petition or not? Although, in that case, the Hon’ble Court rejected the application of the doctrine of constructive res judicata to writ petition filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but thereafter, in the leading case of Devilal Modi Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam reported in (1965) 1 SCR 686, the Hon’ble Apex Court, clarifying the stand in this regard, held on considerations of public policy to prevent multifarious of legal proceedings between the same parties, the rule of constructive res judicata postulates that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he could not be permitted to take tht plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding which is based on the same cause of action and that this rule applies also where prior proceeding is a writ proceeding. 50. The principle of Constructive Res-judicata has been beautifully explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 806, Paras 3 and 4 of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- \"3. The principle of estoppel per rem judicatam is a rule of evidence. As has been stated in Marginson v. Blackburn Borough Council, it may be said to be \"the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action\". This doctrine is based on two theories: (i) the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy, and (ii) the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It therefore serves not only a public but also a private purpose by obstructing the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority, lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action, and that is why it is necessary for the courts to recognise that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity and vitality and merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot therefore survive the judgment, or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is what is known as the general principle of res judicata. 4. But it may be that the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action. If in such a case a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, that would aggravate the burden of litigation. Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process and Somervell, L.J., has answered it as follows in Greenhalgh v. Mallard: \"I think that on the authorities to which I will refer it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.\" \"This is therefore another and an equally necessary and efficacious aspect of the same principle, for it helps in raising the bar of res judicata by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why this other rule has some times been referred to as constructive res judicata which, in reality, is an aspect or amplification of the general principle.\" 51. The judgment in Forward Construction Co. Vs. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 100, further clarified the position by holding that an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined, but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to of essentially connected with subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. Thus, the principle of constructive res judicata underlying Explanation IV of Section 11 of the CPC was applied to writ case. 52. More than 150 years ago, the English Court of Chancery, in Henderson Vs. Henderson, (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313, confirmed that a party may not raise any claim in subsequent litigation which they ought to be raised properly in a previous action. In that case, The Vice Chancellor, Sir James Wigram held thus: “I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter[s] which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. . . . . . . . .” The said decision has also been followed and cited, as a good law, with approval numerous times, including: Johnson v Gore Wood & Co., [2000] UKHL 65 Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats UK Limited, [2013] UKSC 46 Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc, [1991] 2 AC 93 Dexter v Vlieland-Boddy, [2003] EWCA Civ 14 Aldi Stores v WSP Group plc, [2008] 1 WLR 748 Henley v Bloom, [2010] 1 WLR 1770 This Court is conscious of the fact that the law laid down in Henderson Vs. Henderson (supra) is not a binding precedent, but the same carries persuasive value. 53. Although plethora of case laws of the Hon’ble Apex Court, have been referred to in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), however, to facilitate the present adjudication, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in those precedent laws, needs to be briefly outlined in this judgment as well. 54. As pointed out by the Apex court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497, re-evaluation of answer books is not permissible. Decision of the Court in this regard, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27, has been approved and followed in subsequent decisions. If re-evaluation has to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, besides leading to utter confusion. Barring re-evaluation of answer books and restricting remedy of the candidates only to re-totaling has been held to be valid. However, in the context of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the examinee would have the right to seek inspection of the answer books or taking certified copy thereof. 55. In President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603, the Hon’ble Apex Court endorsed the view taken by it in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra) and held that it is in the public interest that the results of public examination when published should have finality attached to it. If inspection and verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty in the examination process. Therefore, in such matters, the Court should be extremely careful and reluctant to substitute its own views to that of the experts. However, the Apex Court sounded a note of caution that it would be wholly wrong for the Court to take a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature isolated from actual realities and grass root problems. It is, in these circumstances, the Apex Court observed that award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible, the examiner has to be not only careful and cautious but also has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. Absence of a provision for re-evaluation cannot be a shield for the examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer scripts. That would be against the very concept for which re-evaluation is impermissible. 56. In Secretary W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242, the view taken in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs D. Suvankar & Anr. (supra) has been approved. 57. It appears that the aforesaid position regarding impermissibility of re-evaluation has been departed upon, when it is a case of erroneous evaluation by using wrong answer key. In the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690, the Apex Court was of the view that if the model answer key which forms the basis for evaluation was erroneous/defective, the result prepared on the basis of such evaluation would also be erroneous. Application of defective answer key would vitiate the result. In such a situation, the decision of the High Court to refer the model answer key to experts for examination, who in the course of their examination found several answers to be wrong, was not interfered with. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that in a case of such nature, the High Court would be entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition. 58. There is no dispute to the proposition canvassed at the Bar that any matter pertaining to conduct of examination, for any purpose, be it for recruitment to public service or in case of examinations conducted by the Board or University, scope of judicial review is very limited. Judges do not assume the role of super-examiners and Courts are also not to act as appellate bodies. Courts ordinarily do not carry out a review of the assessment or evaluation of answers or of marks awarded by the examiner. Once evaluation is done, Courts refrain from entering into the domain of re-evaluation of the answers. Evaluation of answer scripts must be left to the experts in the field. Role of the Court in matters of evaluation of answers scripts is minimal. Courts should not act as appellate bodies in such mattes and should not assume the role of super-examiners. 59. Now that the principles of law are before this Court, and according to those principles judicially adumbrated hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to refer, in the following paragraph(s), to only those questions/answers, which in the opinion of this Court appear to be ‘demonstrably wrong’, and expect those, this Court does not deem it appropriate, in light of the aforementioned precedential backdrop, to make any observation with regard to correctness or otherwise, of those questions/answers, so as to substitute the findings of the experts by its own findings. 60. At this juncture, it is considered apt and expedient to quote the paper-wise question and correct answer as per the experts/respondent-Commission, pertaining whereto, the present writ petitions have been filed, and this will also follow the analysis made in regard to those questions and answers, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court. “G.K. Paper – I Q.17 Which of the following objects are not associated with Ahar Culture sites (i) Rice (ii) Black & Read ware (iii) Copper Objects (iv) Painted Greyware Correct answer of RPSC (D) i.e. Painted Greyware. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof annexed with the report shows that all the other three options, except option (D), are associated with the AHAR Culture, and therefore, answer (D) i.e. Painted Greyware is correct. Though learned counsel for the respondent has tried to make out a case from the Books of the Rajasthan Board that Painted Greyware was also part of the AHAR Culture, but on examination of the literature provided, answer (D) i.e. Painted Greyware, is holding the field. Q.23 Maharana Pratap made Chawad his capital, it remained capital of Mewar till? (i) 1597 (ii) 1605 (iii) 1609 (iv) 1615 Correct answer of RPSC (D) i.e. 1615 Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: This Court has seen that the Book written by Colonel Tod, namely, History of Rajasthan (Part I) clearly mentions that Chawad remained capital of Mewar until 1615. The rebuttal made by learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of school books, which speaks that for twenty eight years, even in 1615, Chawad continued to be the Capital of Mewar. After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof annexed with the report clearly shows that 1615 was the exact year of change of Capital. Thus, the answer (iv) is correct. G.K. (Hindi & Sanskrit). Q.24 Choose the leaders from the following who participated in the Bijolia Peasant Movement? (i) Sadhu Sitaram Das (ii) Vijay Singh Pathik (iii) Manikya Lal Verma (iv) Narayan Ji Patel Options: (A) 1, 2, 4 (B) 1, 2 (C) 1, 2, 3, 4 (D) 1, 2,3 Correct answer of RPSC (C) i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: Various books examined point out the combination of the leaders, who participated in the Bijolia Peasant Movement, but the objection that Narayan Ji Patel was not part of it, is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, as the proof submitted clearly shows that Narayan Ji Patel was involved as Farmer Leader in the Bijolia Peasant Movement at the inception thereof, which started at his arrest for his refusal to render begaar in September 1918. Therefore, option (C) i.e. 1,2,3,4 is correct. Q.26 Who among the following was not related to Mahant Pyarelal case (i) Ram Karan (ii) Mohan Lal Jalori (iii) Thapankesari Singh Bahut (iv) Som Dut Lahri Correct answer of RPSC (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination of the proof annexed with the expert report, which shows that all the other three options, except option (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori, were directly involved in the Murder of Mahant Pyare Lal. Therefore, option (ii) i.e. Mohan Lal Jalori is the correct answer. Q.37 Which of the following text on music were written by Rana Kumbha (A) Sangeetraj (B) Sangeet Mimosa (C) Sudhprabhanth (D) Kala Nidhi Options: (1) A,B (2) A, C, D (3) A, B, C (4) A, B, C, D Correct answer of RSPC (1) i.e. A, B Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the answer (1) i.e. A, B, of the RPSC, is demonstrably erroneous, as the reason for excluding (C) Sudhprabhanth is that the Granth ’Sudhprabhanth’ has been misspelt, as the correct name of Granth is “Sudhprabandh”, which renders the answer wrong. [Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] Q.51 Which one of the following cities hosted the meeting of W.S.F. for the first time in India (i) Mumbai (ii) New Delhi (iii) Jaipur (iv) Chennai Correct answer of RPSC (1) Mumbai Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the said question is within syllabus under the heading “Globalization and its Impact”. Therefore, Answer (1) i.e. Mumbai is correct. Q.53 Instrument of accession of J & K State with Union of India was signed on (i) 22nd October, 1947 (ii) 24th October, 1947 (iii) 25th October, 1947 (iv) 26th October, 1947 Correct answer of RPSC (4) i.e. 26th October, 1947 Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the said question is within syllabus under the heading of para 3 (India’s Federal System). Therefore, Answer (4) i.e. 26th October,1947 is correct. Q.98 Which of the following river is known as the Ganga of South (i) Krishna (ii) Godawari (iii) Mahanadi (iv) Periyar Deleted the question as the correct answer was Kaveri which is none of the options. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the deletion of the question was done on the ground that some of the proof indicate that ‘Godawari’ was also known as ‘Ganga of South’. Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. Sanskrit: 6-^viq=%* v= lekl& ¼1½ uUrRiq:”k% ¼2½ cgqozhfg% ¼3½ vO;;hHkko% ¼4½ deZ/kkj;% As per the expert report option No.1 and option No.2 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the expert report is self explanatory coupled with the material showing that there are multiple correct answers to this question. Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. 8- ^v/;srk* bfr r`PizR;;kUrins /kkrwilxkSZ Lr% % ¼1½ vf/k + b.k ¼2½ vf/k + baM~ ¼3½ vf/k + by~ ¼4½ vf/k + ,M~ As per the expert report option No.1 and option No.2 both were correct, hence, as per the advice of the expert committee the question stands deleted. The question is within syllabus. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the expert report is self explanatory coupled with the material showing that there are multiple correct answers to this question. Therefore, deletion of this question was rightly done. 43- ^gu~ /kkrks% yM~ydkj e/;eiq:”k ,dopus :iaL;kr~& ¼1½ vgr~ ¼2½ vg% ¼3½ vgu~ ¼4½ vgzu~ Option No.4 is the correct answer. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the proof rendered by the petitioners clearly show that option (3) i.e. vgu~ is the correct answer. However, option (4) i.e. vgzu~ of the RPSC also seems to be correct. [Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] 104- fu”dze.klaLdkjL; dky% ¼1½ prqFksZ ekls ¼2½ f}rh; ekls ¼3½ “k”Bs ekls ¼4½ v”Ves ekls The question has been deleted as multiple options were correct. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that this question has been rightly deleted on the ground of having multiple correct answers to this question. 109- iBudkS’kykfHko`}ks dks;a fof/k% izkFkfedrka Hktrs? ¼1½ ini}fr% ¼2½ okD;fof/k% ¼3½ dFkki}fr% ¼4½ o.kZlekEuk;fof/k% Option No.2 is correct answer. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that the relevant proof indicate that option (1) ini}fr% and option (2) okD;fof/k%, both are correct answers. [Therefore, the correct answer to this question needs to be re-examined by the experts.] 117- ukVdf’k{k.kfof/k”kq nks”kk.kkek/kkjs.k Js”B bfr& vkfnz;rsA ¼1½ d{kkfHku;fof/k% ¼2½ O;k[;k fof/k% ¼3½ leok; fof/k% ¼4½ jaxe’okfHku;fof/k% Option No.3 is correct. Analysis made in regard to the question and answer, with the assistance of learned counsel for both sides, and the observations made by this Court: After a careful examination, this Court finds that option (3) i.e. leok; fof/k% of the RPSC is correct. Hindi: 26- ^tjB & tBj* ‘kCn&;qXe dk vFkZ gS& ¼1½ tM+hcwVh& ‘kjhj ¼2½ o`}&Tokyk ¼3½ toku&isV ¼4½ cw
Other Referred Cases
M/s. Utkarsh Classes Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., State of Rajasthan Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & Ors., Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Devesh Kumar Sharma, Devesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr., Rishabh Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., J. Antony Clara Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi, H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & anr., Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors., Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda, Board of Secondary Education Vs. D. Suvankar, Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde, State of U.P. Vs. Nawab Hussain, Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Janapada Sabha, Ratlam, Dexter Vs. Vlieland-Boddy, Aldi Stores Vs. WSP Group plc, Henley Vs. Bloom, Arun Kumar Vs. State of U.P., State of U.P. Vs. Mukesh Thakur, Umrav Singh Charan Vs. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr., Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors.Vs. RPSC & Ors.
Laws Referred To
-
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Startup Compliance
₹1
Income Tax Act 2025
₹0
Rectification Letter - Application for rectification of mistake under Section 154 of I.T. Act
Mehul₹0
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026