Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. – Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.20512-20513 of 2019), Civil Appeal Nos.3652-3657 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29990-29995 of 2019), Civil Appeal No.3651 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21935 of 2019), Civil Appeal Nos.3658-3659 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10035-10036 of 2020) and Civil Appeal No.3660 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9819 of 2020)
Decided on : 07-12-2020
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science – Names of Petitioners were mentioned in list of selected candidates but they could not be appointed due to certain defects in detail forms filed by Petitioners after their selection – Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, Court has deprecated practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of questions by courts which lack expertise in academic matters – It is not permissible for High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when Commission has assessed inter se merit of candidates – Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize answer-sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and academic matters are best left to academics – It was not open to Division Bench to have examined correctness of questions and answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of Expert Committee – Courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters – In any event, assessment of questions by courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible – Delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time – Cascading effect of delay in appointments is continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization – Other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel – Select List and Wait List prepared on the basis of 2nd Answer Key upheld. (Paras 11, 12, 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
High Court stayed appointments to the post of Senior Teachers (Social Science) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.07.2016 till further orders. The said order was challenged by some of the candidates who were selected. By an order dated 24.07.2019, Division Bench of High Court set aside the interim order dated 10.07.2019. While doing so, Writ Petition filed by Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Meena was disposed of along with a connected Writ Petition filed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and others. Appellants challenged the said judgment of Division Bench dated 24.07.2019 in the appeals. Point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised Select List dated 21.05.2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of 2nd Answer Key.
Findings of Court:
In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
L. Nageswara Rao. J.
Leave granted.
1. Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Meena, the Appellants herein, have filed SBCWPNo.10992 of 2019 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench aggrieved by their non-selection to the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science. By an order dated 10.07.2019, the High Court stayed the appointments to the post of Senior Teachers (Social Science) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.07.2016 till further orders. The said order was challenged by some of the candidates who were selected. By an order dated 24.07.2019, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the interim order dated 10.07.2019. While doing so, the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar Meena was disposed of along with a connected Writ Petition filed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and others. The Appellants challenged the said judgment of the Division Bench dated 24.07.2019 in the appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of the Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20512-20513 of 2019. An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the RPSC") on 13.07.2016 for selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers (Grade II) in Social Science, Sanskrit, Hindi, English and Mathematics. Written examinations were conducted on 01.05.2017 and 02.07.2017 in General Knowledge and Social Science respectively. The RPSC issued the 1st Answer Key on 06.02.2018 and declared the results. The names of the Petitioners were mentioned in the list of selected candidates but they could not be appointed due to certain defects in the detail forms filed by the Petitioners after their selection. On 25.04.2018, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench referred 3 questions in the 1st Answer Key to be reconsidered by an Expert Committee. Shortly thereafter, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench referred another 8 questions for reconsideration by an Expert Committee on 05.05.2018. An Expert Committee constituted by the RPSC revised the Key Answers for 2 questions in Social Science and 1 question in General Knowledge. A revised Key Answer, which shall be referred to as the 2nd Answer Key, was issued pursuant thereto, and the Merit List was also revised on 17.09.2018. The names of the Petitioners were not included in the revised Merit List.
3. The judgment dated 05.05.2018 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by which 8 questions were referred to the Expert Committee for reconsideration was the subject matter of appeal before a Division bench of the High Court. The grievance of the Appellants therein was that they had challenged the correctness of 33 questions which required to be referred to an Expert Committee. The High Court examined the correctness of the disputed questions by itself and came to a conclusion that the answers to 5 questions were wrong. After being informed that the results have been announced and the selection process was completed, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018 directed revision of the Select List and give benefit of the revision only to the Appellants before the Court. The Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10035-36 of 2020is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 12.03.2019.
4. On 13.03.2019, a direction was issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench that the names of the ineligible candidates should be deleted from the Select List and a revised Select List shall be issued. The 3rd Answer Key was published by the RPSC on 08.04.2019 but the benefit of the said revision was given only to the Appellants in the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench on 13.03.2019
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
