Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 492
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Pappu Ram Jat - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 14068 of 2019, 13179 of 2019, 13827 of 2019, 13943 of 2019, 14001 of 2019, 14127 of 2019, 14209 of 2019, 14210 of 2019, 14217 of 2019, 14386 of 2019, 14455 of 2019, 14789 of 2019, 14974 of 2019, 15057 of 2019, 15952 of 2019, 15961 of 2019, 16029 of 2019, 19970 of 2019
Decided On : 02-06-2020
Naveen Dhuwan, Advocate, Balkishan Saini, Advocate, Sanjay Mehla, Advocate, Abhi Goyal, Advocate, Saugath Roy, Advocate, Rajesh Maharshi, Advocate, Nalin G Narain, Advocate, Sandeep Taneja, Advocate
The court cannot substitute its own personal knowledge or information to that of the experts who prepared the final answer key.
Headnote:
EXAMINATION - ANSWER KEY - CHALLENGE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - COURT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION TO THAT OF THE EXPERTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the answers to questions 13, 24, 25, 40, 41, and 49 in the final answer key for an examination. They argued that the answers were erroneous and materially affected their results.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it cannot substitute its own personal knowledge or information to that of the experts who prepared the final answer key. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect.
Issues: 1. Whether the court can interfere with the final answer key prepared by experts? 2. Whether the petitioners have demonstrated that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it cannot interfere with the final answer key prepared by experts unless the petitioners demonstrate that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect. 2. The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and vacated the interim order passed by it. The respondents were directed to proceed with the appointment process on the basis of the final result as declared on the basis of the report of the experts.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The matter has come up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order. However, learned counsel for the respective parties jointly are in agreement that these writ petitions itself may be disposed of finally at this stage.
2. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the answers as finally approved of questions no.13, 24, 25, 40, 41 and 49 are under challenge.
3. For question no.13, initially in the answer key, the correct answer reflected was "B" which was challenged by the petitioners. However, the examining body, after considering the objections and opinion of the expert, has retained the answer as option "B".
4. For question no.24, originally the answer key reflected the same to be deleted against which objections were filed whereafter on the basis of opinion of the expert, the option "A" has been treated as the correct answer in the final answer key.
5. The question no.25 was originally deleted in the first answer key. However, after receiving objections and report of the expert committee, option "C" has been treated as the correct answer.
6. For question No.40, originally the answer option "A" was treated as correct answer. After objection having been received, the same has now been deleted in the final answer key on the basis of the expert opinion.
7. For question no.41, the option "D" was originally held to be the correct answer but after receiving objections and considering the opinion of the experts, the same has been deleted.
8. For question no.49, originally the option "A" was considered as the correct answer but after receiving objections and opinion of the expert committee, the option "A" has been retained as the correct answer.
9. Learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners jointly submitted that the relevant answer options, which were challenged by them in their respective writ petitions, are erroneous and in support of their contention, they have relied upon certain material which they have extracted from various books.
10. It may be noted that in various writ petitions, one or two of the above questions' answers are under challenge.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the authentic pronouncements in different books extracts, which (Downloaded on 16/06/2020 at 02:34:56 PM) (13 of 19) [CW-14068/2019] have been referred to, the answer as reflected in the final answer key is erroneous and has materially affected their result.
12. For question no.13, the question asked was "which method of vegetables gardening is called as intensive gardening" and learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) treated as correct is wrong and the correct answer was option "D" (None of these). It is submitted that the correct answer is Market Gardening.
12.1 For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners have taken this Court to the books about gardening and it is mentioned that Market Gardening is done by intensive farming and the process of Crop Rotation is followed and therefore, for the question where the method of Vegetable Gardening is Intensive Gardening, the correct option can be other than Market Gardening and therefore, the answer option was "D" (None of these).
12.2 In reply, the concerned Expert Committee has given reasons for retaining option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) on the ground that in Kitchen Gardening the vegetables are taken one after other. It is also mentioned that there is no specific objection in relation to the answer "B".
13. For question no.24, where the question asked was "In which word is used ?", the Expert Committee has given reasons for treating option "A" as the correct one as the word is formed by adding suffix of . Originally, the question was deleted.
13.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no objection with regard to the said aspect.
14. For question No.25, which was
