The RPSC's failure to provide the appellant with an opportunity to interact with the scribe before the examination was arbitrary and resulted in his poor performance.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, who rejected the writ petition preferred by him. The appellants complaint was that in the RAS Examination, 2018, which he attempted as a 100% visually impaired candidate, as he was not provided with a scribe, he could not attempt the answer scripts in the manner that he wished. He alleged that in the public examination held by the RPSC (which was of objective type containing 150 questions with answer options), the scribe provided was at the venue and that familiarity of the scribe with the manner of speech, resulted in an outcome adverse to him.

2. The RPSC held the examination for selection to RAS on 05.08.2018. The appellant represented to the RPSC/State Government, alleging that contrary to the provisions of the circular and guidelines, he was not made to interact with scribe at least 24 hours before the test. The appellant also relies upon a letter dated 02.02.2019, addressed by the Superintendent of the venue where the examination was held, which negated his complaint and stated that there was no provision enabling interaction between the scribe and the candidate 24 hours before the date of the test.

3. It is argued, on the strength of the circular issued by the Central Government on 26.02.2013 (Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs) and the judgment of this Court in Kuldeep Jaiman v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4192/2017, dated 24.03.2017), that not providing scribe who could be effective and also not facilitating interaction between the scribe and the candidate, in the manner prescribed by the circular i.e. 24 hours before the test, is arbitrary.

4. Learned counsel for the RPSC contended that appeal- as well as the petition involve highly contested and disputed questions of fact which are best left for adjudication elsewhere. He urged that this Court should not disturb the order of the Single Judge, who declined to interfere in writ proceedings, arguing that there is no denial of the fact that on the date of the test, the appellant was in fact provided a scribe. The allegation that the scribe could not understand what the candidate spoke, or that the candidate was not made to interact, was not ever raised contemporaneously when the appellant in fact took the test. It is also argued that there is no specific provision requiring the candidate to interact with the scribe in advance.

5. The circular of 26.02.2013 (issued by the Central Government), which the appellant relies upon, inter alia, states as follows:-

"IV. The candidate should have the discretion of opting for his own scribe/reader/lab assistant or request the Examination Body for the same. The examining body may also identify the scribe/ reader/ lab assistant to make panels at the District/Division/ State level as per the requirements of the examination. In such instances the candidates should be allowed to meet the scribe a day before the examination so that the candidates get a chance to check and verify whether the scribe is suitable or not."

In interpreting this circular, in the context of a similar examination, this Court in Kuldeep Jaiman (supra) i.e. the present appellant in a past examination, held as follows:-

"Counsel appearing for the petitioner, thus, submits that the petitioner is entitled to opt for scribe of his own choice. Counsel further submits that in pursuance of the Circular dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure7) issued by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the Union Public Service Commission had permitted the petitioner vide Annexure-6 dated 27.02.2017 to have scribe of his own choice. Counsel contends that if the Union Public Service Commission can permit the petitioner to have scribe of his own choice, respondent-Commission cannot deny the same facility to the petitioner.

Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2- Commission has submitted