The RPSC's action of inviting objections to the questions and answers on a second occasion was illegal and resulted in conflicting expert opinions, leading to the quashing of the third answer key and the publication of the result based on the second answer key.

1. - The bunch of writ petitions is involving common question of law, thus heard and decided by this common order.

2. It is a case where the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") issued an advertisement on 02nd August, 2013 to invite applications for the post of Lecturer (School Education). The applications were invited for different subjects mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioners submitted application forms and were accordingly, permitted to appear in the written examination held on different dates for different subjects. After the written examination, the answer key was published by the RPSC. The objections were invited against the questions and answers after publication of first answer key. Whoever were aggrieved by the questions or answers given in the key had submitted objections. The RPSC sent the disputed questions and answers to the expert committee to seek their opinion.

3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that in pursuance to the expert opinion, second answer key was published by the RPSC and again they sought objections and thereupon, after seeking opinion of experts on second occasion, third answer key was published. In the third answer key, some of the answers got changed and few questions were deleted. The paper of general knowledge was common for all the posts. For the said paper also, objections were invited and submitted by the candidates followed by third answer key. After declaration of result, the recommendation for the appointment of successful candidates were made.

4. For illustration, for the post of Lecturer (Commerce), a press note to invite objections to the questions and answers on second time was issued on 31st December, 2014. The aforesaid was after meeting with the objections of the first key. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no reason to invite objections to the questions and answers on the second occasion. No direction for it was given by any Court so as to invite objections to the questions and answers on second occasion. The press note dated 31st December, 2014 for the post of Lecturer (Commerce) further indicates that no new objection would be accepted, meaning thereby, objections to the question and answer should be in respect of the objections earlier raised. The RPSC, however, accepted even new objections and sent it for expert opinion again. It was contrary to their own press note. As an outcome of which third key was published on 20th March, 2015. Therein, few questions were deleted or answers were changed. The result was thereupon declared on 20th March, 2015.

5. The petitioners challenged the action of the RPSC immediately by maintaining these writ petitions. The Court passed interim order restraining the non-petitioners to make appointment but despite that appointments were given in back dates, i.e., on 18th, 19th and 20th July, 2015. In view of the above, the non-petitioners even disobeyed the interim order of this Court. The petitioners are those, who could find place in the merit as per the first answer key and also as per second key. They have now been ousted with the publication of third and final key and result thereupon.

6. Coming to the facts of the case and to demonstrate glaring mistake of the RPSC to delete question, reference of few questions of general knowledge has been given. The questions have been deleted by accepting the opinion of the so called experts after ignoring, that there is a glaring mistake in the opinion of the experts.

7. For illustration, question No.75 of "A" series of General Knowledge Paper was a question on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 (for short "Act of 2009"). It was asked as to what is the minimum percentage of the member from the parents or guardians in the school management committee. As per the Act of 2009, it is 75 percent but said question has been deleted as the Rules made under the Act of 2009 later on in