Narayan Lal Salvi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who had appeared in the selection process for the post of Clerk Grade-II advertised on 01.08.2017.

The selection process involved a written examination of 75 marks having three part i.e. General Knowledge, General English & General Hindi,

carrying 25 marks each. The written examination/Phase-I was held, wherein the petitioners participated.

After the examination was over and the model answer key was published by the respondent-University, various objections were filed by the

candidates.

The respondent-University, after consideration of the objections, published the final answer key on 27.03.2018 (Annex.10) and deleted 18 questions

and the for rest of the questions, weightage was increased from 1 mark each to 1.3157 marks each and the result was declared.

In the present writ petition, the petitioners have contested the action of the respondents in deleting 18 questions primarily on the ground that 24%

questions of Phase-I examination has been deleted, further a total of 11 questions have been deleted in Hindi subject, which has resulted in granting

benefit to the candidates, who were good in other subjects. Further submissions have been made that instead of deleting the said questions, the

respondents should have awarded bonus marks.

During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that objections were raised for as many as 23 questions and though 18

questions have been deleted, qua the rest of the questions, whether the objections were dealt with or not is not known.

By order 23.04.2018, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to produce the expert committee report. The said report has been produced.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Umrav

Singh Charan & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr.: SBCW No.14119/2016, decided on 08.02.2017, which judgment has been

upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh Rathore v. RPSC & Ors.: DBSAW No.186/2017, decided on 08.03.2017.

It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in Umrav Singh Charan (supra), the issues sought to be raised by the petitioners have no

substance and the same deserves to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions seeking to question the procedure adopted by the respondents and the fact that

petitioners have been put to disadvantageous position on account of deletion of 11 questions from a particular section.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

This Court in the case of Umrav Singh Charan (supra) after considering similar nature objections, inter alia, laid down as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that as a consequence of the 18 questions out of 75 having been deleted, the marks of the

deleted questions have been distributed in remaining questions proportionately making it 2.63 marks for each question. The paper-I was divided in five

parts and these parts were carrying different weightage marks. Any meritorious candidate who has answer the deleted questions asked amongst the

five sections as per the scheme of the examination correctly has been put on the same pedestal to that of the candidate who has answered these

questions wrong. In these circumstances, the adoption of dividing the marks on pro-rata basis would not cure the defect in the examination as it clearly

put meritorious candidates in a disadvantageous position. The said argument has to be rejected outright. The deletion of the question and the

distribution of their marks proportionately in remaining questions does not discriminate between the candidates. All are treated similarly and equally

applies to all. The deleted questions stand deleted qua all the aspirants. None of the candidates are allotted marks on the basis of these deleted

questions. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere on the basis of deleted questions.

…………………………………

…………………………………

…………………………………

The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. But once, the expert committee has

been formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide, any further interference would only unsettle the settled legal position that the Courts have to

show deference to the recommendation of the expert committee consisting of able and distinguished experts in the field. The view expressed by the

expert committee requires to be given paramount consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias and malafides or even a whisper of

extraneous consideration.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere either in the question paper or the answer keys when the correctness of all the questions

has been re-examined by the expert committee.â€​

Besides the principles laid down in the case of Umrav Singh Charan (supra), dealing with the issues raised in the present writ petition, the respondents

have also produced copy of the expert committee report, wherein all the objections raised pertaining to various questions have been dealt with and as

laid down hereinbefore in the case of Umrav Singh Charan (supra), this Court in absence of any allegations of malafide cannot go into the merit of the

decision of the expert committee report.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, the same is, therefore, dismissed.