Bhanwra Ram Choudhary @APPELLANT@Hash Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Paper,Unit,Part,Question No.,Petitioner’s Marks,"Other

candidates

marks in the

same

question

I,3,A,1,Zero(0),1½

II,2,A,2,Zero(0),½

II,2,B,15,½,2

III,3,B,8,Zero(0),3½

III,3,A,3,Zero(0),½

III,1,B,14,Zero(0),2

5&Jherh jktdqekjh xqtZj & lnL;,,,,,

cSBd esa vk;ksx ds lfpo Jh fxfjjktflag dq’kokgk ,oa mi lfpo Jh Hkxor flag jkBkSM Hkh mifLFkr gq,A",,,,,

,stsUMk la[;k& 1 jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk] 2013 ,oa 2016 esa mRrj iqfLrdk esa ewY;kadu esa NwVs x, Hkkx dk ewY;kadu djok, tkus dh fLFkfr ij fopkj foe’kZ djus ckcr~A",,,,,

izdj.k esa xgurk ls fopkj foe’kZ fd;k x;kA jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a la;qDr izfr;ksxh] ¼eq[;½ ijh{kk] 2013 ds laca/k esa dqN vH;kfFkZ;ksa }kjk mudh mRrj iqfLrdkvksa esa dqN iz’u tkapus ls jg tkus ds laca/k",,,,,

esa vk;ksx dks vH;kosnu izLrqr fd,A dqN vH;kfFkZ;ksa us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk Hkh izLrqr dhA",,,,,

vk;ksx us izkIr vkifRr;ksa ,oa ewY;kadu mijkUr iMus okys izHkko dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izkd`frd U;k; ds n`fâ€Vxr loZlEefr ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd mDr tkapus ls ‘ksâ€k jgs iz’uksa dks fu/kkZfjr ekin.M vuqlkj ijh{kd bZ&1]",,,,,

bZ&2] ,oa bZ&3 ls ewY;kadu djk;k tk,A fQj rhu fo’ksâ€kKksa dh lfefr mDr ewY;kadu dk voyksdu dj viuh laLrqfr nsosaA rRi’pkr~ gh ewY;kadu dks vafre ekurs gq, ijh{kk ifj.kke esas la’kks/ku dj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh",,,,,

tk,A",,,,,

bl laca/k esa fopkj foe’kZ dj ;g Hkh loZlEefr ls fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd ,sls izdj.kksa ds fuLrkj.k ds laca/k esa loZizFke ,d lfefr dk xBu ekuuh; lnL; MkW- ds-vkj- cxfM;k dh v/;{krk esa fd;k tk,A mDr lfefr esa loZJh Hkxor flag",,,,,

jkBkSM] mi lfpo] vf[kys’k fery] flLVe ,ukfyLV ,oa ,u-dslkjLor] lgk;d lfpo lnL; gksaxsA mDr lfefr iz’u tapus ls jgus ds dkj.kksa dh tkap dj lsok iznkrk QeZ rFkk ewY;kadudrkZ ijh{kdksa ds fo:) dk;Zokgh izLrkfor djsxhA",,,,,

bl lca/k esa loZlEefr ls ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds lwpukFkZ ,oa izsl uksV tkjh fd;k tk, rFkk 7 fnol dk le; nsrs gq, vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ;fn dksbZ ewY;kadu ls ‘ksâ€k iz’u dh f’kdk;r gks rks] vkifRr;ka izLrqr",,,,,

djus dk volj iznku fd;k tk,A izkIr vkifRr;ksa ij mDrkuqlkj gh vkoâ€​;d dk;Zokgh dh tk,A",,,,,

bl izdkj dh =qfV vkj,,l 20165 dh ijh{kk esa Hkh jgus dh lEHkkouk ds n`fâ€Vxr mDr ijh{kk dh leLr mRrj iqfLrdkvksa dh vad xf.kfr; tkap lk{kkRdkj lekIr gksus ls iwoZ fd;k tkuk lqfuf’pr fd;k tk,A var esa cSBd /kU;okn izLrko",,,,,

ds lkFk lekIr gqbZA,,,,,

vuqeksnukFkZ izLrqr gSA,,,,,

,lMh@&",,,,,

¼fxfjjkt flag dq’kokgk½,,,,,

lfpoâ€​,,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents however, states that the aforementioned resolution was cancelled vide another resolution taken by the Full Commission in its meeting on 18.09.2017. The said resolution dated",,,,,

18.09.2017 reads as under:-,,,,,

“jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx] vtesj,,,,,

¼05@2017½                                                                                  Â,,,,,

                                                       fnukad 18-09-2017 dk dk;Zokgh fooj.k,,,,,

Â,,,,,

lEiw.kZ vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 18-09-17 dks lk;a 06%00 cts ekuuh; v/;{k,,,,,

egksn;,,,,,

 Jh ,l-,l-’kekZ dh v/;{krk esa vk;ksftr gqbZA cSBd esa fuEukafdr lnL;x.k mifLFkr gq,%&",,,,,

1& Jh MkW- vkj-Mh- lSuh & lnL;,,,,,

2& Jh ,l-,y-eh.kk & lnL;",,,,,

3& MkW- ds-vkj- ckxfM;k & lnL;,,,,,

4& MkW- f’koflag jkBkSM & lnL;,,,,,

5&Jherh jktdqekjh xqtZj & lnL;,,,,,

cSBd esa vk;skx ds mi lfpo Jh Hkxor flag jkBkSM Jh mifLFkr gq,A ,ts.Mk la[;k&2 %& jktLFkku jkT; ,oa v/khuLFk lsok,a la;qDr izfr;ksxh ¼eq[;½] ijh{kk 2013 dh mRrj iqfLrdkvksa esa ewY;kadu ls ‘ksâ€k jgs] iz’uksa",,,,,

ds laca/k esa %& izdj.k esa laca/k esa iwoZ esas lEiw.kZ vk;ksx dh cSBd fnukad 12&9&17 dks fy, x, fu.kZ; dh iqu% leh{kk dh xbZA bl laca/k esa vk;ksx dks voxr djk;k x;k fd vkj,,l 2013 dh izfØ;k lEiw.kZ gks pqdh gS rFkk",,,,,

jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu;qfDr;ka Hkh nh tk pqdh gSA vk;ksx }kjk leLr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkjVhvkbZ ds rgr mRrj iqfLrdk,a miyC/k djk nh xbZ gS rFkk muls dqN vH;fFkZ;ksa ls ewY;kadu ds laca/k esa vH;kosnu Hkh izkIr gq, gSa] ftudk",,,,,

fuLrkj.k Hkh fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% lEiw.kZ vk;ksx ds iwoZ fu.kZ; fnukad 12&9&17 esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ij iqufoZpkj vko’;d gSA izdj.k esa xgurk ls iqufoZpkj fd;k x;kA fopkjksijkUr iwoZ esa vk;ksx }kjk fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ftlds rgr",,,,,

vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lwpukFkZ izsl uksV tkjh fd;k tkuk gS] rRlaca/kh fu.kZ; dks iqufoZpkj ds mijkUr loZlEefr ls fujLr fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA var esa cSBd /kU;okn izLrko ds lkFk lekIr gqbZA vuqeksnukFkZ izLrqr gSA",,,,,

,lMh@&",,,,,

¼Hkxor flag jkBkSM½ mi lfpo**,,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that it was due to an inadvertence that the mistake had happened and the Commission had already got the answer sheets of the petitioner re-evaluated by the,,,,,

experts and the marks were credited in the total marks of the petitioner, and after awarding two marks, the petitioner, who earlier stood at Merit No.2029, has been moved to Merit No.2017(A).",,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner accordingly stands redressed, in light of the aforementioned reassessment, and thus, the relief accordingly was granted.",,,,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the relief beyond the prayers ought not to be granted to the petitioner.,,,,,

On being dissatisfied and shocked at the response of the respondent-RPSC, which had conducted the evaluation, while not checking the answers in the answer-sheets of the petitioner, is a disastrous issue, which could render",,,,,

the very purpose of the RPSC as questionable, further information was sought from RPSC.",,,,,

This Court sought response from the RPSC so as to take their stand regarding the overall re-evaluation of all the answer scripts, as if, during random checking, if certain copies have been found to be having unchecked",,,,,

answers, then it could be an extremely disturbing fact for the credibility of the RPSC and the selection so made. 19. On such observations, the RPSC filed an additional affidavit, stating therein that the Commission in all received",,,,,

complaints regarding either questions or part of questions being unchecked in 23 answer scripts of 19 candidates. The additional affidavit of the RPSC further stated that the same were taken up for consideration, and it was found",,,,,

that most of the complaints were genuine. The Commission immediately appointed subject experts for various questions, and got the unchecked portion of the candidates’ answer scripts re-evaluated and marks were awarded",,,,,

for all those questions, which remained unchecked by the subject experts.",,,,,

The RPSC has further informed that after completing this process, it was found that out of 19 candidates, merit has changed in the case of 14 candidates. Three candidates, who were earlier declared not qualified for the",,,,,

interview, have been declared qualified for the interview, and their interviews have been conducted on 29.11.2017, and the result would be forwarded to the DOP. As far as the results of the remaining two candidates are",,,,,

concerned, the same remain unchanged.",,,,,

The RPSC, in its additional affidavit, further stated that the re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer scripts was taken up by the subjects experts and two marks were awarded to the petitioner after such re-evaluation,",,,,,

which has resulted in the change of merit of the petitioner from Merit No.2029 to Merit No.2017(A).,,,,,

The RPSC, in its additional affidavit, has further stated that out of 2900 answer scripts, which were randomly checked, error was found only in 23 answer scripts, meaning thereby, the answer scripts, wherein the error was",,,,,

found, was not even 1% of the candidates, who had obtained their answers scripts under the RTI.",,,,,

This Court was further concerned by the affidavit filed by the respondent, as the respondent-RPSC had accepted that the answers remained unchecked and anomalies were in existence; but shockingly, the respondent-RPSC",,,,,

seems to be shirking away from the gross error committed by it, by suggesting that it had checked 2900 copies and error was found only in 23 answer scripts, whereas such an error in the evaluation of the answer scripts was",,,,,

unacceptable, and has caused great trust deficit in the RPSC, which would be very difficult to fill.",,,,,

This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, finds that it cannot close its eyes upon the disastrous evaluation being made by the respondent-RPSC in pursuance of the",,,,,

advertisement dated 24.06.2013 under the Rules of 1999 for direct recruitment to the post of RAS as well as various Subordinate Services.,,,,,

This Court is shocked to see, on a bare perusal of the answer scripts brought on record by the petitioner, that the three questions clearly indicate that they have remained completely unchecked. This Court is appalled by the",,,,,

stand taken by the RPSC that it had randomly checked about 2900 answer scripts and error was found only in 23 answer scripts. The stand of the RPSC in its additional affidavit that most of the complaints, pertaining to those 23",,,,,

answer scripts, were genuine, and the unchecked portions of the copies have been checked by the experts, and the results have been accordingly modified, is not satisfactory to this Court.",,,,,

We cannot go by the argument of the respondent-RPSC, that the hands of this Court are tied down in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the relief claimed by the petitioner, as while adjudicating",,,,,

the grievance of the petitioner, this Court has found that the respondent-RPSC has clearly faultered in checking the answer-scripts.",,,,,

The Titanic error committed by the respondent-RPSC, by not checking the number of answers in the answer sheets, cannot be ignored by this Court, and in fact, the response of the RPSC is not only agonizing to the petitioner,",,,,,

but is also very disturbing for the aspiring candidates, whose faith in the RPSC would be shaken on the fact coming to their knowledge that almost 23 answer scripts, out of the randomly checked 2900 answer scripts, are having",,,,,

unchecked questionsanswers.,,,,,

This Court cannot shut its eyes to such an illegality committed by the respondent-RPSC, which is casting severe aspersion upon the selection process of the State Civil Services, and therefore, the present writ petition is",,,,,

allowed, while issuing the following directions to the respondent-RPSC:",,,,,

(i) The RPSC shall manually check all the copies ofthe candidates, who had appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS and other Allied Services, and also, the merit shall be re-determined,",,,,,

and while making necessary correction in the mark-sheets of the Mains Examination, the respondents shall publish the revised results within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After",,,,,

undertaking such an exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then he shall be considered for appropriate appointment in his respective category, strictly in accordance with law.",,,,,

(ii) The examiners, who were assigned the work ofchecking the answer scripts in the present recruitment and have left the questions-answers unchecked in the answer scripts of the candidates, as identified, would be debarred",,,,,

from the examiner duties/expert duties, or any kind of duties with the RPSC, for the next three years. (iii) A cost of Rs.15,00,000/- is imposed upon the RPSC, which shall be deposited with the Principal",,,,,

Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, who shall appropriately disburse the said amount for the",,,,,

welfare of the poor students in the Government Primary Schools of the State.,,,,,

(iv) The compliance report shall be filed before this Court within a period of two months. Though the file is closed, but the compliance report shall be kept before this Court on 07.11.2018.â€​",,,,,

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition stands allowed in the same terms, except cost, with the following directions:-",,,,,

(i) The RPSC shall manually check all the copies of thecandidates, who had appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS and other Allied Services, and also, the merit shall be redetermined,",,,,,

and while making necessary correction in the mark-sheets of the Mains Examination, the respondents shall publish the revised results within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After",,,,,

undertaking such an exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then he shall be considered for appropriate appointment in his respective category, strictly in accordance with law.",,,,,

(ii) The examiners, who were assigned the work of checkingthe answer scripts in the present recruitment and have left the questions-answers unchecked in the answer scripts of the candidates, as identified, would be debarred",,,,,

from the examiner duties/expert duties, or any kind of duties with the RPSC, for the next three years.",,,,,

(iii) The compliance report shall be filed before this Courtwithin a period of two months. Though the file is closed, but the compliance report shall be kept before this Court on 07.11.2018.",,,,,