Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Satwinder Pal Kaur - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 167/2019, S.B. Writ Contempt No. 27/2019, S.B. Writ Contempt No. 384/2019, S.B. Writ Contempt No. 394/2019, S.B. Writ Contempt No. 617/2019, S.B. Writ Contempt No. 240/2021
Decided on : 17-09-2021
Mr. H.S. Sidhu Mr. Inderjeet Yadav Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG with Mr. Kunal Upadhyay Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the State to provide reasons for constituting another expert committee after the initial committee had already provided its report, and the importance of complying with court directions.
Headnote:
Committee - Examination of Objections - Court directs State to provide reasons for constituting another expert committee
Fact of the Case:
The court had directed the respondents to constitute a three members' committee to examine the objections raised by the petitioners. The committee constituted by the Chief Executive Officer gave its report, but the state government referred the disputed questions to a university, which resulted in another report being filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the report sent by the Coordinator bore the signature of only one expert, contrary to the order passed by the court. The court directed the respondent-State to provide reasons for constituting another expert committee and a copy of the order/communication sent to the University in this regard.
Issues: The issues revolved around the constitution of expert committees, the submission of reports, and the decision-making process of the State in handling the examination objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once a committee had been constituted and had given its report, the State should not have constituted another committee without providing reasons for doing so. The court also highlighted the importance of following the court's directions and ensuring compliance with the orders.
Final Decision: The respondent-State was directed to place on record the reasons/note-sheet for which another expert committee had been constituted and a copy of the order/communication sent to the University. The cases were listed for further hearing on 01.10.2021.
JUDGMENT
1. By way of order dated 30.08.2018, this Court had directed the respondents to constitute a three members' committee to examine the objections raised by the petitioners.
2. On 23.07.2021, this Court had ordered as under:
"Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a Committee as directed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2018 has been constituted and needful would be done within a period of two weeks.
List this case on 13.08.2021.
In case, the Compliance of order dated 30.08.2018 is not made, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar shall remain personally present before this Court on 13.08.2021."
3. The committee constituted by the Chief Executive Officer has given its report.
4. The Chief Executive Officer in turn sent a communication dated 27.07.2021 to the Joint Secretary and Deputy Commissioner of Rural and Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur along with report and sought guidance.
5. A perusal of the said communication dated 27.07.2021 clearly suggests that the Expert Committee had clearly reported that answer of question No.111 and question No.125 is option D.
6. It is to anybody's surprise that in furtherance of the communication dated 27.07.2021, the state Government has instead of giving its guidance/direction has referred the disputed questions to the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur.
7. Pursuant to reference by the State Government, another report has been filed. A perusal of the report given by Sukhadia University shows that the answers given in the Model Answers Key have been reiterated as correct answers.
8. While maintaining that the report mentioned in communication dated 27.07.2021 is the correct report, Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners invites Court's attention towards the order dated 30.08.2018, passed by this Court and argues that this Court had directed to constitute a three member committee, whereas the report, which has now been placed on record (sent by the Coordinator) bears the signature of only one expert.
9. The respondents have not placed on record any order/communication of the competent authority or the reasons for discarding the three member committee report and constituting committee afresh.
10. In the opinion of this Court, once the Chief Executive Officer had constituted a three member committee and it has given its report, normally the State ought not to have constituted another committee.
11. Be that as it may. The fresh report shows that the same comprises of signatures of only one person, instead of three experts. It is thus, clearly contrary to the order dated 30.08.2018, passed by this Court.
12. The respondent-State is directed to place on record the reasons/note-sheet for which another expert committee has been constituted and a copy of the order/communication sent to the University in this regard.
13. List these cases on 01.10.2021, as prayed.
