Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, CJ. and Mr. G. R. Moolchandani, J.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Raj - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 697 of 2019 Connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 718 of 2019 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 742 of 2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 746 of 2019, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 750 of 2019
Decided On : 29-05-2019
Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig with Mr. Govind Gupta, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. R.P. Saini, Mr. Himanshu Jain, Mr. Vedprakash Sogarwal, Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, Mr. Hemant Tailor, Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG with Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat, Advocates, for the Respondent
Headnote:
Education Law - Preliminary Examinations – Notification - Public Service Commission - RAS/RTS Examinations, 2018 were notified - Objections received were then taken up and considered by an expert committee set up by RPSC, which after considering the recommendations of committee published the final answer keys - Results published by RPSC became subject-matter of controversy in two cases i.e. Jitendra Kumar Bagaria & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.25338/2018) and connected cases decided and judgment in Bhanwar Lal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. (SBCWP No.17219/2018) and connected cases, decided on 15.12.2018. Both these decisions relied upon parameters of judicial review-outlined in such cases, by an earlier judgment of this Court in Ramdhan Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.10622/2014) - Held, The impugned judgment in this Courts opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No. 11) and that the RPSCs explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given - Courts opinion an error crept into the approach and therefore, the conclusions in the impugned order. Even if arguendo, it were assumed that the review (or revaluation for which there is no provision in RPSC) was correctly permitted, nevertheless, for the court to conclude that the conclusions of the expert body were palpably incorrect, the standard which the Supreme Court indicated in Ran Vijay (supra) was that "the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, C.J. - The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "RPSC") in these five appeals is aggrieved by a common judgment issued by the learned Single Judge, whereby a direction was issued to delete Question Nos.11 & 22 from the Model Question Paper for the Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS) cum Rajasthan Tehsildar Service (RTS) Preliminary Examinations, 2018 and a consequential order directing fresh reevaluation in the light of the judgment.
2. The present litigation has a chequered history. Briefly, the RAS/RTS Examinations, 2018 were notified in 2018. The process entails a two stage examination procedure : Preliminary Examination, whereby the candidates are assessed on the basis of their answers to objective multiple choice questions. After the conclusion of the preliminary examination, results of model answer key were published, eliciting comments and objections. The objections received were then taken up and considered by an expert committee set up by the RPSC, which after considering the recommendations of the of the committee published the final answer keys. The results published by the RPSC became the subject-matter of controversy in two cases i.e. Jitendra Kumar Bagaria & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.25338/2018) and connected cases decided on 10.12.2018 and the judgment in Bhanwar Lal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. (SBCWP No.17219/2018) and connected cases, decided on 15.12.2018. Both these decisions relied upon the parameters of judicial review-outlined in such cases, by an earlier judgment of this Court in Ramdhan Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.10622/2014) decided on 18.11.2014. The directions in Jitendra Kumar Bagaria and Bhanwar Lal (supra) are identical. Directions were issued for re-consideration of the correct marking by the Expert Committee with respect to Question Paper Nos.11 & 22.
3. The relevant observations with respect to two questions and the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge - primarily made in Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra) are as follows:-
"In the instant case in respect of model question No.11 the petitioners have relied upon the gazette notification on the website of the State of Rajasthan to contend that Nanak Ram did not belong to the Alwar School of Painting as also the publication of the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy -a government of Rajasthan entity to the same end, as against the books of private authors whose publishers have not been stated nor obviously approved or recognized by the State/Central Government or a University/Board. In respect of model question No.22, reliance by the petitioners has been placed on text-books published by NCERT and RSBSE collected by team of nationally recognized academic experts for the answer that Pondu and Odisha were also a mismatch. Yet the RPSC's experts have oddly contrary to the dictum of the court in Ramdhan Kumawat for a contrary view relied on the book authored by a Professor in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh and published by a publisher in Merut."
4. Accordingly, a review was directed in respect of Model question papers No.11 & 22 apart from Question Paper Nos.45, 73, 83 & 101 in respect of RAS and RTS Preliminary Examinations. The RPSC, based on the fresh recommendations of the expert committee, which re-considered the matter, rejected the petitioners' case, in effect reiterating the model keys published earlier in respect of Question Nos 11 and 22.
5. Before the learned Single Judge in the second and latest round of litigation, the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "candidates") contended that the review conducted was a mere formality because experts did not take into account specific directions of the court and carry out an informed analysis with the result that the previous answers - being erroneous and demonstrably wrong in Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra), were reiterated.
6. In reply to the candidates' allegations, the RPSC in i
