SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
KANHYA LAL SAIN – Petitioner
Vs.
REGISTRAR EXAMINATION R H C - Respondent
D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12277, 13543, 13036, 12276, 13025, 13026, 13027, 13028, 13029, 13030, 13031, 13032, 13033, 13034, 13035, 13037, 13125, 13038, 13039, 13040, 13041, 13042, 13799, 13800, 13521, 13126, 13544, 13545, 13601, 13648, 13749, 13750, 13751/2015.
Decided On : 6.10.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Counsel For Petitioners: Mr.Prahlad Singh, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.S.K.Jindal, Mr.Amit Jindal, Mr.A.S.Shekhawat, Mr.S.N.Kumawat, Mr.T.L.Pandey, Mr.Ved Prakash, Mr.Peeyus Kumar, Mr.Sumit Khandelwal, Mr.Umashankar Pandey, Mr.Sanchit Tamra, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Mr.Giriraj Sharma, Mr.Vikas Kabra, Ms.Meenu Tanwar, Mr.Shobhit Vyas, Mr.Saransh Saini, Ms.Nidhi Khandelwal and Mr.Kapil Gupta.
Counsel For Respondents: Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Vishnukant Sharma Mr.Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Ajay Choudhary.

Headnote:(a) Academic Matters - Judicial review - Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view - Opinion of Experts cannot be made the subject of judicial scrutiny - Interference in such matters should be in rare and exceptional circumstances - Held - In case there is doubt as to which of the answer is correct then the answer as accepted by the subject expert should be given preference and adhered to. (Para 37)

        ¼d½ 'kS{kf.kd ekeys & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu & U;k;ky; dks viuk Lo;a dk n`f"Vdks.k izfrLFkkfir djus esa vR;f/kd :i ls vfuPNqd gksuk pkfg;s & fo'ks"kKksa dh jk; dks U;kf;d vUoh{kk dk fo"k; ugha cuk;k tk ldrk & ,sls ekeyksa esa gLr{ksi nqyZHk o viokn Lo:i ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa gh gksuk pkfg;s & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;fn bl ckr dk lansg gks fd dkSulk mRrj lgh gS rks ml fo"k; ds fo'ks"kK }kjk ;Fkk Lohd`r mRrj dks izkFkfedrk nh tkuh pkfg;s vkSj mldk voyEcu fy;k tkuk pkfg;sA ¼in la[;k 37½

       (b) Academic Matters - Discrepancy in the question or evaluation of the answer - Extent of benefit - Held - It should be for all the candidates appearing for the Examination and not for the petitioners only. (Para 31)

       Petition dismissed.

        ¼[k½ 'kS{kf.kd ekeys & iz'u ;k mRrj ds ewY;kadu esa QdZ & ifjykHk dh lhek & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g ijh{kk esa cSBus okys lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, gksuk pkfg;s u fd dsoy ;kfpdkdrkZvksa ds fy,A ¼in la[;k 31½

       ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA

       

JUDGMENT :

BY THE COURT (Per Hon’ble Mr.Ajay Rastogi, J):

Instant batch of writ petitions have been filed by the candidates who had participated in the Preliminary Examination held by the respondents, pursuant to Notification dt.26.04.2015 holding recruitment in Civil Judge Cadre, the post which is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (in short ‘the Rules, 2010’).

In fact, the petitioners have challenged the final answer key of certain questions dt.20.08.2015 of the Preliminary Examination held for recruitment in Civil Judge Cadre, 2015 conducted by the respondents and their grievance, in totality, is in respect of the multiple choice answers of 10 questions i.e. 7 questions in Law Subject; 2 in English Subject; & 1 in Hindi Subject and it has been prayed that either the model answer may be restored or all the four multiple choice answers are incorrect or the answer proposed by the Expert Committee is not correct and prayed that while accepting their contentions result be revised & direct the respondents to declare the result afresh.

We have noticed the rival versions, portraiting the relevant facts having regard to the identicalness in the challenge, from D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12277/2015 & 13543/2015.

As adverted to hereinabove, an advertisement dt.26.04.2015 came to be notified by the respondents on its official website inviting on-line application forms from the eligible candidates for recruitment to 105 posts in the Civil Judge Cadre, 2015, which is included in the Schedule appended to the Rules, 2010. As per the scheme of Rules, 2010 and the terms of advertisement, the examination scheme for the recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge consists of: (i) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type); (ii) Written Main Examination (Subjective Type); & (iii) Interview. The competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge is conducted in two stages i.e. Preliminary Examination & Main Examination and 15 times the number of vacancies (category-wise) are declared qualified in the Preliminary Examination and admitted to the Main Examination and all those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks on the last cut-off are also admitted to the Main Examination. The Preliminary Examination for 105 posts of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate was conducted on 05.07.2015 and all the candidates who appeared in the Preliminary Examination were allotted the question papers in four series i.e. Series ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ and the number of questions in each series was 100 and the maximum marks were 100.

On the next very day of the Preliminary Examination being held i.e. on 06.07.2015, the model answer key was uploaded for inviting objections till 15.07.2015 and it was specifically mentioned that no objections thereafter would be entertained. It is stated by the respondents in their reply that in response thereto, the respondents received objections against 73 model answers and out of total 73 questions, 52 were pertaining to Law subject; 11 were pertaining to English subject; & 10 were pertaining to Hindi subject. It is further stated that all the objections were placed by the respondents before an Expert Committee including subject Experts i.e. Law, English & Hindi and the Expert Committee after due deliberations prepare three separate reports i.e. for Law, English and Hindi subjects. The Expert Committee, after meticulous examination, gave its report, details whereof will be referred to at a later stage and unanimously sustained the objections by changing option of four questions viz.:-

1. Question No.A-11/B-22/C-26/D-33

2. Question No.A-30/B-6/C-10/D-17

3. Question No.A-43/B-50/C-61/D-68

4. Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 Apart from it, in respect of two questions i.e. Question No.A-28/B-4/C-8/D-15 and Question No.A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100, it was proposed to delete or to take appropr


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top