Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Champa Lal and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2240, 1709, 1755, 2051, 2154, 2155, 2192, 2197, 2218, 2250, 2251, 2257, 2604, 3053, 3224, 4336 and 9377/2019
Decided On : 28-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : H.S. Sidhu, Manoj Bhandari, Nupur Bhati, Keshav Bhati, M.P. Pareek, Vijay Bishnoi, N.R. Budania, T.S. Rathore, S.R. Godara, Trilok Singh, Mahendra, Mahaveer Bhanwariya and Anil Bachhawat
For the Respondents: Anil Gaur, AAG, Anupam Gopal Vyas, Manish Patel and Kuldeep Mathur
The court's interference in matters of academic nature, such as the final answer key in a recruitment examination, is limited and subject to certain parameters, including the presumption of correctness of the key answers and the requirement of clear demonstration of material error.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT - LIVESTOCK ASSISTANT - FINAL ANSWER KEY - MODIFICATION - WRIT PETITION - FACTUAL ERROR - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - PARAMETERS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the merit list and final answer key for the recruitment of Livestock Assistant, alleging errors and irregularities. The main issues raised were the weightage given to Departmental Contractual Employees (DCE) candidates, the appearance of roll numbers twice in the list of candidates called for document verification, and objections to the final answer key.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court found that the award of 15% marks to DCE candidates was justified based on the relevant order and rules, and the objections raised in this regard were baseless. 2. The court clarified that the appearance of roll numbers twice in the list of candidates was due to TSP area candidates being permitted to apply in both categories, and the issue was resolved by the candidates' option for one category. 3. The court examined the objections raised by the petitioners to the final answer key based on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Rahul Singh (2018) 7 SCC 254. 4. The court found that the deletion of certain questions was justified based on the Expert Committee's opinion and the material provided. 5. However, the court identified an error in the modification of the answer to question No. 87, where the correct answer 'C' was changed to 'B'. This error was directed to be rectified.
Issues: 1. Validity of the weightage given to DCE candidates. 2. Duplication of roll numbers in the list of candidates called for document verification. 3. Objections to the final answer key, including the deletion of certain questions and the modification of the answer to question No. 87.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the award of 15% marks to DCE candidates was justified based on the relevant order and rules, and the objections raised in this regard were baseless. 2. The court clarified that the appearance of roll numbers twice in the list of candidates was due to TSP area candidates being permitted to apply in both categories, and the issue was resolved by the candidates' option for one category. 3. The court examined the objections raised by the petitioners to the final answer key based on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Rahul Singh (2018) 7 SCC 254. 4. The court found that the deletion of certain questions was justified based on the Expert Committee's opinion and the material provided. 5. However, the court identified an error in the modification of the answer to question No. 87, where the correct answer 'C' was changed to 'B'. This error was directed to be rectified.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were partly allowed. The court directed the modification of the final answer key by taking answer (C) as suggested in the preliminary answer key as correct instead of (B) for question No. 87. The merit list/result was ordered to be revised, and a fresh list of candidates to be called for documents verification, based on the revised result, was to be published. The recruitment process was to proceed further thereafter.
ORDER :
Arun Bhansali, J.
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the merit list (Annex. P/6) of the written examination prepared in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.3.2018 (Annex. P/1) for recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant and seeking a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with law. Further challenge has been laid to the final answer key issued by the respondents pursuant to the written test held by the respondents for appointment to the post of Live Stock Assistant.
2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that an advertisement dated 14.3.2018 was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant. The advertisement was issued pursuant to the provisions of Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 and inter alia provided that Departmental Contractual Employees (fixed pay) ('DCE'), who have worked for more than 7 years would be entitled to weightage of 15 additional marks.
3. The petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement and were issued provisional admit cards for written examination. The question booklet issued by the respondents for written examination contained 120 questions and the maximum marks provided were 200. After the written test was held on 21.10.2018, the preliminary answer key was issued by the respondents to which, the petitioners filed objections. Whereafter, the result was declared on 29.1.2019 by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ('the Board'), whereby, 1.5 times candidates of the number of posts advertised were called for documents verification. At the end of result, the formula adopted for calculation of marks was indicated alongwith a note as under:-
The formula, provided for calculation of total marks of a candidate, reads as under:-
KF= Key Factor = Maximum Marks
x Toal No . of Questions of a Particular Section/Subject
Total No . of Questions Number of Valid Questions of a Particulars Section/subject
uksV %& 1- ijh{kk ds iz'u i= ds vuqlkj dqy iw.kkZad 200 FksA vr% dqy 200 vadksa dks 85 izfr'kr ds Ldsy ij Hkkjkad nsrs gq, ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj fd;k x;k gS rFkk Departmental Contractual Employee (DCE) dks 15 izfr'kr vad dk vfrfjDr Hkkjkad fn;k x;k gSA MhlhbZ dks fn;k x;k Hkkjkad iw.kZr;k vfUre ¼izksfotuy½ gS rFkk foHkkx ls lR;kiu gksus ds mijkUr gh ;s vfUre ekus tk;sxsaA vr% nLrkost lR;kiu ds ckn vH;fFkZ;ks dh ojh;rk esa ifjorZu gksuk LokHkkfod gSA^^
4. The final answer key was also issued, in which, 7 questions were deleted and certain answers as indicated in the preliminary answer key were varied. The petitioners, who failed to get included in the list of successful candidates/are dissatisfied with the final answer key, have filed the present writ petitions.
5. A challenge has been laid to award of 15% marks to the DCE candidates as indicated in the final answer key instead of 15 marks as indicated in the advertisement. The challenge to the result has also been laid on the ground that roll numbers of certain candidates have appeared in the list twice, resulting in, the total number of candidates called for document verification in real terms getting reduced.
6. The petitioners in all the petitions, cumulatively put, have challenged the final answer key qua questions No. 8, 15, 31, 41, 46, 71, 87, 89, 103, 104 and 112 on various grounds i.e. questioning the deletion, variation in the answers as indicated in the preliminary answer key and not accepting the objections raised by the petitioners qua the preliminary answer key.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that a bare look at the advertisement clearly indicates that the DCE candidates were entitled to 15 marks as additional weightage, however, the said aspect has been varied in the final answer key, whereby, DCE candidates have been awarded 15% marks, which comes to 30 marks, which is n
