Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
Shantnu Jain S/o Shri Jayram Jayram Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13901 of 2019 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14101 of 2019
Decided on : 02-02-2023
Advertisement - Post of Lab Assistant - Examination - Challenged - Petitioners, in writ petition, have pleaded that an advertisement dated issued by respondent No.2 - Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for making recruitment on post of Lab Assistant against 954 Non-TSP posts - Petitioners, in writ petition, have pleaded that online application forms were submitted by all of them in their respective categories before the last date of submission of forms - Petitioners have pleaded that they were issued admission card by respondents to appear in examination scheduled and all petitioners had appeared in examination - Petitioners have pleaded that petitioners were supplied with question booklet - Court has also gone through material, which has been placed on record by respondents along with an additional affidavit and Court finds that material, which has been relied upon by expert before publishing final answer key, has given option ‘A’ as correct answer. Para 50
Finding of Court :
Court even if has option to see correctness of an answer in face of opinion of an expert, it will not be appropriate to substitute its own views in respect of the opinion, which is given by subject expert - If this kind of exercise would be permitted, Court would definitely be forming its opinion in academic matters and same is not permissible, as has been held by Apex Court in above referred two cases - Court finds that expert has considered relevant material, placed before him and further, deductions and inferences, which are sought by petitioners by reading few lines from books, which have been produced before Court, would not result into forming opinion by this Court that option ‘C’ has wrongly been chosen by respondents - Submission of learned counsel for petitioners that all petitioners would have been in merit, had respondents acted in proper manner and even addition of one correct answer would bring them in prescribed merit list, suffice it say by Court that if final answer key has been published and correct re-evaluation has been made by subject expert, adding of any mark or not giving any weightage to negative mark, would not bring petitioners within merit and ultimately, answer key, which has been published, will prevail in these matters.
Result : Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(1) These two writ petitions involve common issue and as such, the same are decided by a common order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2) SB Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 has been filed by the petitioners by making following prayers :
questions (question No.58, 88, 130 and 142) were wrongly deleted and answer of question No.12 was wrongly changed as “A” instead of “D” and despite objection question No.16 which was having two options correct, either it could have deleted or marks should be given to those persons who have given both the option (A and C) correct.
2. Directed to the respondents not to delete Question No. 58, 88, 130 and 142 in Final Answer Key.
3. Further directed to the respondents question No.16 of master booklet may be deleted or marks given to all candidate who have given option “A”, and “C”.
4. Further directed to the respondents not to change the answer of question No.12 as “A” instead of “D”.
5. Further directed to the respondents revise the result according to above prayer and if then petitioner scored more mark then he may be call for document verification and given offer of appointment with all consequential benefits.”
(3) SB Civil Writ Petition No.13901/2019 challenges the question No.12 in the written examination for the post of Lab Assistant and also the result dated 22nd September, 2019.
(4) This Court takes SB Civil Writ Petition No.14101/2019 as a lead case for taking the facts on record, as pleaded in the writ petition.
(5) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that an advertisement dated 09th May, 2018 was issued by the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for making recruitment on the post of Lab Assistant against 954 Non-TSP posts.
(6) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that online application forms were submitted by all of them in their respective categories before the last date of submission of forms.
(7) The petitioners have pleaded that they were issued admission card by the respondents to appear in the examination scheduled on 03rd February, 2019 and all the petitioners had appeared in the examination.
(8) The petitioners have pleaded that the petitioners were supplied with the question booklet, where maximum marks of 300 were given and further, the booklet provided that there was to be negative marking of each wrong answer by deducting 1/3rd mark.
(9) The petitioners have pleaded that after examination, the preliminary answer key was uploaded by the respondents and objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates.
(10) The petitioners have pleaded that they raised their objections with regard to certain questions and also deposited the requisite fee and after submitting objections, the petitioners were hopeful that their objections were to be taken in right perspective.
(11) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that on 22nd July, 2019, final answer key was published and uploaded, wherein question Nos.38, 48, 58, 67, 88, 130 and 142 were deleted and answer of question No.12 was changed as ‘A’ instead of ‘D’.
(12) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that the respondents, on the basis of result declared on 22nd July, 2019, started scrutinizing eligibility and document verification of the candidates, as per the merit awarded to the different qualified candidates.
(13) The petitioners, in the writ petition, have pleaded that name of the petitioners were not found in the list of qualified candidates on account of deleting the questions and wrongly changing the answer of question from the preliminary answer key and as such, the petitioners, as per the preliminary answer key, would have secured more than cut off marks. The petitioners have also prepared a table showing cut off marks in the different categories and the marks, s
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts cannot substitute expert judgment unless answers are demonstrably erroneous.
Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
