ORDER :

1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ms. Suman Kumari being aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Single Bench whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (a) Seeking to question revised answer key issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for recruitment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2021; (b) Seeking direction for preparation of a fresh answer key for considering objections raised by the writ petitioner for the disputed questions; (c) To ignore the erroneous answers based on the material produced by the writ petitioner; (d) re-evaluate the answer sheets and issuance of a fresh select list of provisionally selected candidates, was rejected.

2. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4011/2022) preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Bench by recording concession of the counsel that the controversy involved in the writ petition was squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in the case of Phoosgir & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17265/2021) and other connected matters which had been dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2022 and thus, the writ petition of the petitioner may also be dismissed in light of the above judgment.

3. Learned counsel representing the appellant petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that dismissal of Phoosgir’s writ petition would not per se, disentitle the petitioner from raising her genuine grievances regarding the faulty/vague questions. He urged that some of the disputed questions which were propsoedin the featured recruitment process, were also incorporated in another recruitment process undertaken by Uttar Pradesh Police Department and if a comparative analysis is made of the question paper/ answer key of the present recruitment process and that adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Department, an apparent discrepancy is visible which entitles the writ petitioner appellant to question the bonafides of the decision taken by the respondents in issuing revised answer key.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record.

5. At the outset, it may be noted here that since the writ petition of the appellant petitioner has been decided on the basis of ratio of judgment of Phoosgir, it would be apt to reproduce the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Bench while resolving the controversy presented in the said case :-

“Learned counsel for the parties were heard on the various questions.

The petitioners have filed extracts from books/material seeking to support their contentions in relation to the validity of the questions/answers and the decision of the expert committee thereon.

It would be appropriate to reproduce the disputed questions, the final answer based on decision of the expert committee and view of the expert committee :

Question No.2 : fdl fodYi ds leLrin dk lekl&foxzg vlaxr gS\

¼,½ frjlB & rhu vkSj lkB

¼ch½ eqfuJs"B & Js"B gS tks eqfu

¼lh½ iapik= & iap ¼ikap½ ik=ksa dk lewg

¼Mh½ ns'kHkfDr & ns'k dh HkfDr

Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (B)

View of the expert committee : eqfuJs"B dk lekl&foxzg ^eqfu;ksa esa Js"B* gksxkA vr% ;s vlaxr gSA tcfd fodYi esa ^Js"B gS tks eqfu* vafdr gSA vr% ;g vlaxr gSA

Question No.5 : fuEu esa ls v'kq) okD; dk p;u dhft, &

¼,½ eSaus jk/kk dks ,d iqLrd lefiZr dhA

¼ch½ izR;sd O;fDr dks lkfRod thou thuk pkfg,A

¼lh½ d`i;k njoktk can djus dk d"V djsaA

¼Mh½ ;g dke dksbZ odhy ls gh gks ldrk gSA

Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D)

View of the expert committee : vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k mÙkj fodYi ^Mh* lgh gSA fo|kfFkZ;ksa us lekukFkhZ ds vk/kkj ij tks rdZ fn;s gSa] os d`i;k vkSj d"V ds lanHkZ esa mfpr ugha gSA vr% fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds vkCtsD'ku ekU; ugha gSA

Question No.9 : vFkZ dh n`f"V ls dkSu&lh yksdksfDr vlaxr gS\

¼,½ dkSvk pys gal dh pky & fcuk