1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to reconduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers - 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “REET-2015”) and/or to reevaluate the paper in light of the objections raised by the petitioners in the memo of the writ petition.

2. While hearing the matter for admission on 06th July, 2017, attention of this Court was drawn towards host of discrepancies in question paper, corresponding answers-key and the manner in which the said examinations were conducted, for which, this Court passed the following order:-

“By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to reorganise/reconduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers Test, 2015 (REET 2015) in wake of various discrepancies in the question paper and answer key published by the Convenor, REET.

Mr. Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner apprising the Court that the petitioner’s question code is ‘Z’, navigated this Court through the final answer key and pointed out that the respondents have selected such questions which had more than one correct answers. The list of said MCQ’s (Multiple Choice Questions) is given here infra :-

Question Nos. Correct Answers

15 (B and C)

40 (A and B)

61 (B and D)

80 (B and C)

92 (A, B and C)

95 (C and D)

118 (A and C)

149 (B and C)

150 (A and D)

3. He simultaneously stated that, Questions No.61 & 80 also suffer from the same lacunae, but are not relevant in the present context, as the same pertained to language paper of Punjabi, in which the petitioner did not appear.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts narrated above show recklessness, rather callousness in discharging of duty by the people, who are entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the examination.

5. A look at the questions and their corresponding answers stated above, shows that the respondents were required to keep in mind that the question paper follows Multiple Choice Questions pattern, whereby each question is supposed to have singular correct answer out of the given multiple options, yet they have, inter alia, placed questions in the paper, having more than one correct answers. Such fact situation is not dependent upon any probe or enquiry, as it is apparent from the showing of Respondent No.3 itself, in the answer key published. It is but obvious that an incumbent appearing in such examination faced with multiple correct answers would get confused. It may be true that the petitioner’s answers qua these questions may not be correct and he may ultimately not be entitled to get marks for his otherwise wrong answers, but nevertheless it is shocking to note that as much as seven questions had more than one correct answers. It is noteworthy that respondent No.3 has awarded bonus marks for seven questions different from the above questions, leave apart various other questions, which were found incorrect by the expert committee, which was constituted for redressal of the grievance of the examinees. It is a matter of concern that Respondent No.3 has awarded bonus marks for 7 other questions, but has not paid any heed to the vice aforesaid and has permitted it to perpetuate, giving no solution.

6. The above facts are shocking and unravel the lack luster attitude and negligent manner, in which the examination has been conducted. The discrepancies and inconsistencies as noticed above are enough to shatter the faith and confidence of the masses. In wake of such inconsistencies, the time has come to invoke serious remedial measures for restoring the sanctity of the examination process.

7. In light of the facts canvassed, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the entire examination process has been conducted in an unscrupulous and negligent manner. With a view to take remedial measures and reinforce the faith in the system, matter requires considers.

8. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application as well.

9. Mr. Rak