2013 Supreme(Raj) 1390

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2142 of 2013 (With 25 other connected petitions).
Decided On : 31-05-2013

Headnote:

The court held that the selection process for Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Gr.II conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) was flawed due to multiple errors in the question paper, including incorrect answer keys, ambiguous questions, and questions outside the syllabus. The court directed RPSC to revise the result by deleting the erroneous questions and conducting fresh interviews for the shortlisted candidates.

Fact of the Case:

RPSC conducted a written examination for the recruitment of APP Gr.II, with 15776 candidates appearing for the same. The question paper contained 100 objective-type questions, four options were given against each question requiring the candidates to select one of them. RPSC received a total of 15776 applications. In the scheme of the Rajasthan Public Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, appointment to the post of APP Gr.II is based entirely on interview. Discretion has been given to RPSC to conduct screening test for the purpose of short listing the candidates. It was for that purpose that RPSC conducted a written examination on 01.12.2011 for all 15776 candidates, who applied. Actually, however, only 9191 candidates appeared for this screening test. RPSC sent all such representations to an expert committee which recommended for deletion of 9 questions; being Questions No.6, 22, 23, 27, 25, 64, 73, 78 and 80 of A-series. RPSC therefore deleted these nine questions and decided to spread 100 marks into 91 questions. Thus, value of each question was increased from 1 mark to 1.09 mark. RPSC referred the matter to yet another committee comprising of two senior Professors viz., Prof. S.S. Suthar and Prof. Satish Shastri and on their recommendation, decided to delete question no.98 (A-series) on the premise that two options out of four given against that question, namely, options no.1 and 3, were out of syllabus. A revised result was thereafter declared with RPSC deciding not to exclude any candidate declared pass earlier but declared 74 additional candidates pass, who secured equal or more marks than the last of 502 candidates originally declared pass. This raised the total number of candidates to be called for interview to 576 (502+74), (this result shall hereinafter be referred to as 'second result'). With the deletion of one more mark, value of each mark was increased and was now 1.10 mark. Yet another writ petition was filed by one Kaushal Singh being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18845/2012 before the Single Bench of this court at Jaipur. The said writ petition was decided vide judgment dated 24.11.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to RPSC giving details of the questions having wrong answers and also producing the material in support thereof. It was directed that RPSC shall consider the same on its own and if need be, by constituting an independent expert committee to examine the matter. Kaushal Singh in his representation to RPSC objecting to the correctness of options given to six questions viz. questions no.4, 21, 26, 50, 69 and 70 of A-series. Matter was again referred to an expert committee and its opinion was obtained. The committee recommended for deletion of questions no.21 and 26, which was accepted by RPSC. Thus, there remained only 89 questions. Result was once again revised without disturbing the candidates who were declared pass earlier. Result of second revision was declared on 30.10.2012, thus taking total number of candidates to be called for interview to 672 (502+74+96), (for short, 'third result').

Finding of the Court:

The court found that four questions in the question paper were demonstrably wrong and should be deleted, and the answer key for one question should be changed. The court also found that RPSC's decision to call more than three times the number of candidates for interview was arbitrary and unfair.

Issues: 1. Whether the selection process for APP Gr.II conducted by RPSC was flawed due to errors in the question paper? 2. Whether RPSC's decision to call more than three times the number of candidates for interview was arbitrary and unfair?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the selection process for APP Gr.II conducted by RPSC was flawed due to multiple errors in the question paper, including incorrect answer keys, ambiguous questions, and questions outside the syllabus. The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University and Others v. Samir Gupta and Others, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Another, and Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others to hold that the courts have the power to intervene in the selection process if it is found to be arbitrary or mala fide. 2. The court held that RPSC's decision to call more than three times the number of candidates for interview was arbitrary and unfair. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Others to hold that interview should not be the only basis for selection and that weightage should be given to written examinations.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned select list. The court directed RPSC to make fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates by deleting the erroneous questions and changing the answer key for one question. The court also directed RPSC to prepare a fresh merit list and conduct interviews of the shortlisted candidates. The court further directed RPSC to prepare a combined select list of the candidates who were already interviewed and those who are interviewed pursuant to this judgment in the order of merit, and forward the same to the Government for appointment.