Point of law:
scope of interference relating to the answer key of public body is concerned, a candidate has a right to object if an answer key is wrong. Such an objection has to be raised at the initial stage itself.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners participated in the selection process conducted by the RPSC for the purpose of appointment as College Lecturer (Geography) under the Advertisement issued by the RPSC on 04.03.2016 and 01.09.2016. The selection process was conducted by conducting written examination and interview. The petitioners were called for interview. After written examination, result was declared on 20.04.2017 and after the interview was conducted on 19.06.2018, final merit list was published on 24.08.2018, wherein, the petitioners find place in the waiting list. It is to be noticed that the RPSC published a model answer key on 24.07.2016 after the examination was conducted on 04.07.2016. However, as the petitioners have made representation for issuing another answer key dated 13.10.2016, the writ petition has been filed assailing the answer key dated 13.10.2016. Now after the final selection process is complete and merit list has already been published, learned counsel submits that the answer key at Anexure-15 issued on 13.10.2016 was published only on 16.04.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the key published now, there are discrepancies and certain questions have been deleted and answers have been changed erroneously. It is further submitted that the expert Committee on the basis of which the answer key has been published, must be produced before the court to assess whether the expert Committee correctly issued the answer key or not. The answer key published on 13.10.2016 was patently wrong and there was no occasion for deleting the questions.

3. Learned counsel further submits that on account of deletion, marks are provided to one, and all that particular question and the negative marking also goes and accordingly result is seriously affected. It is also submitted that as per the answer key earlier published on 26.07.2016, the petitioner has rightly answered the questions.

4. It is to be noticed that the answer key challenged by the petitioner dated 13.10.2016 was the basis for declaration of result of the written examination. In the written examination, the petitioners were declared successful and were called for interview. Now after having participated in this interview and having been placed in the waiting list, they cannot turn around and challenge the said answer key merely on the basis that it has been placed on the website of RPSC in the year 2019. Principle of approbate and reprobate will therefore apply on the petitioners.

5. I have also considered the submission as regard the scope of interference relating to the answer key of public body is concerned, a candidate has a right to object if an answer key is wrong. Such an objection has to be raised at the initial stage itself. The entire examination process stood concluded by issuing of the final merit list on 24.08.2018 wherein name of the petitioners found place in the reserved list. Merely because the RPSC has published the key issued on 24.07.2016 on its website on 16.04.2019, no right would accrue to the petitioners now after the entire selection process is over. It is to be noticed that the impugned answer key only relates to the written examination which was the basis for petitioners to participate in the interview whereas the selection process involves written examination as well as interview and the final result has been declared where petitioners have failed.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that they have already participated in the interview after they were found meritorious in the written examination. The selection process has been completed and, till that time, no objections were raised by the petitioners with regard to the answer key and once result is declared they cannot turn around and challenge it after more than one year of the declaration of the final select list. The same stands already concluded.

7. This court also notices that the controversy which has now been raised relating to selection pr