Ramdhan Kumawat vs The State of Rajasthan

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—All these petitions pertain to the recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level I and Level II) made at various Districts for various subjects, on the basis of examination conducted by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 24/2/2012. Hence they were clubbed and heard together with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, and are being disposed of by this common order.

The facts in nutshell may be stated as under:-

2(i) The respondents had issued a common advertisement dated 24/2/2012 for the appointment of Teachers Grade III (Level I and II), pursuant to which the District Level Examinations were held at various Districts for various subjects. The selection on the said posts of Teacher Gr. III (Level I or Level II) (subject-wise) was based upon the merit list prepared by adding 20% marks secured in RTET Examination to the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by the respective Zila Parishads. The written examination was having weightage of 200 marks with negative marking of 1/3rd marks for every wrong answer. The respondents conducted the said written examination on 2/6/2012, and the concerned authorities of the respondents had collected all the question papers along with the OMR Sheets from the candidates, who had appeared for the said examinations, after the examination was over. The respondents declared the first result of the said examination on 27/8/2012.

2(ii) It appear that the candidates, who were not selected, approached the High Court by filing different writ petitions, seeking directions to allow them the inspection to their OMR Sheets, question papers and answer keys. The High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14726 of 2012, Kapil Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide order dated 24/9/2012 directed the respondents to decide the representations of such petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, . The respondents having allowed such petitioners to have inspections of their OMR sheets, question papers, and answer keys, some of the candidates again approached this Court by filing several writ petitions, challenging the merit list on the ground that the model answer keys of various subjects contained several wrong answers. This Court again vide order dated 20/12/2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20698/2012, Bhagwan Singh Saini vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. directed the said petitioners to make representations to the respondents giving out details of the questions, which were having the wrong answers, and directed the respondents to consider such representations and if need be, after constituting an independent expert committee to examine the matter. It appears that pursuant to the said order, the respondents had appointed an expert committee, and declared the revised result on 2/9/2013, declaring revised cut of marks of the respective categories for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level I and II) subject wise.

2(iii) It further appears that on account of the declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013, the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department vide order dated 30/8/2013 directed the CEOs of all Zila Parishad to terminate the services of such petitioners, who were earlier appointed on their respective posts. The said order dated 30/8/2013 was again challenged by some of the candidates on the ground that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to submit their objections with regard to the disputed questions and answers in the answer key. The bunch of such petitions came to be disposed of by the Court by passing detailed order on 19/12/2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15788/2013, Hemendra Kumar Jangid & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. wherein the learned Single Judge, upholding the order dated 30/8/2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, gave certain directions. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19/12/2013, some of the petitioners preferred appeals before the Division Bench. In the said appeals, the Division Bench after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents directed them to maintain the status-quo with regard to the services of the concerned appellants-petitioners, who were already appointed prior to the revised result, vide the order dated 7/1/2014 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 35/2014 and others in the case of Hemdrna Kumar Jangid & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2(iv) It further appears that some of the candidates, who were already appointed and whose services were sought to be terminated pursuant to the order dated 30/8/2013, had also filed another set of writ petitions, seeking directions to allow them the inspection of OMR sheets, question papers and answer key. The Court vide order dated 11/3/2014 passed order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2157/2014 directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in the light of the decision of Apex Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (supra).

2(v) It further appears that the respondents thereafter issued the press note on 29/7/2014 regarding uploading of question papers and OMR Sheets of all the candidates on their website making them available from 30/7/2014 till 08/08/2014. Some of the candidates, who were already appointed and sought to be terminated pursuant to the order dated 30/8/2013, again filed the writ petitions after inspecting the uploaded OMR sheets, question papers, and answer keys on the ground that their answer sheets were wrongly evaluated on the basis of erroneous model answer keys. Some of the candidates, who were not selected and appointed, also filed writ petitions on the ground that the model answer keys did not show the correct answers and the evaluation was based on erroneous answer

In the instant petitions, the petitioners have challenged the evaluation of their answer sheets contained in the OMR Sheets mainly on the ground that the respondents had applied erroneous model answer keys for the said evaluations leading to an erroneous results of the examination conducted for the said posts at various Districts. There are four sets of petitions, which may be summarised as under:-

3(i) The first set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9092/2013, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15311/13 etc. pertain to the challenge to the incorrect answer keys prior to declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013, by the candidates who were not selected.

3(ii) The second set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10124/2014 pertain to the challenge to the incorrect answer keys after the declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013 by the candidates, who were not selected.

3(iii) The third set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10259/2014, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/14 etc. pertain to the challenge to incorrect answer keys after declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013 by the candidates, who were already appointed, however their services were sought to be terminated in view of the said revised result, and in view of the order dated 30/8/2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department.

3(iv) The forth set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10216/2014 & Ors. pertain to the challenge to incorrect answer keys after the declaration of revised result dated 2/9/2013 declared by the respondents. The said petitions have been filed by them after the respondents uploaded the answer keys vide press note dated 29/7/2014.

The bone of contention raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the respondents had applied erroneous answer keys for evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates leading to erroneous results of the subjectwise examinations conducted in various Districts for the posts of Teachers Grade III (Level I & II). The petitioners, in each of their respective petitions have given illustrations to substantiate their allegations as to how they were subjected to injustice because of the erroneous evaluation. Few glaring instances pointed by them are cited herein below:-

The abovestated instances are only tip of the iceberg mentioned to show the apparent lapses, otherwise there are many more instances cited in various petitions to show that the answer keys prepared for each of the subjects were absolutely erroneous and not in conformity with the standard books published by the Board of Secondary Education, NCERT and other Government publications. From the above stated instances, the Court is fully satisfied that there were number of errors committed by the respondents in evaluating the answer sheets of the candidates, who had appeared for different subjects at different Districts, which had led to erroneous results and erroneous appointments. It also appears that the revised answer keys prepared by the Expert Committee were also not prepared on the basis of standard books/materials published by the Government for being taught in the schools and colleges. As held by the Apex Court in case of Rajesh Kumar and Others etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Others etc., , if the model answer key, which was used for evaluation of answer scripts was itself defective, the result prepared on the basis of the same would be no different. It was also held therein inter-alia that the High Court was entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key. It was also observed that given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts revaluated on the basis thereof.

In case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, , the Apex Court was dealing with the irregularities alleged in the evaluation of the answer sheets in the recruitment process for the post of Subedars, and it was observed therein that where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any fault, fraud or mala fide of appointee, sympathetic view can be taken qua such appointee considering various factors including length of service. However the Apex Court also reiterated that a person appointed erroneously must not reap benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing interests of meritorious and worthy candidates.

In the instant cases, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.K. Gupta for the respondents though has tried to point out from the replies filed on behalf of the respondents in some of the petitions that the model answer keys prepared by the Expert Committee should be treated as the correct one, and the revised result declared on the basis thereof be maintained, he had fairly conceded that there were number of errors and mistakes found in the model answer keys prepared by the said Expert Committee. He urged the Court to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the model answer keys prepared by the Expert Committee being not inconsonance with the facts mentioned in the standard text books and the materials published by Education Boards for being taught in the Schools and Colleges and that some of the questions themselves were faulty and that the options given in some of the questions were also not correct, the appointments made on the basis of the revised result dated 2/9/2013 by the respondents could not be countenanced. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a fresh merit list is required to be prepared, re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the candidates for all the subjects on the basis of the correct answer keys that may be prepared by the experts like Readers and Professors in the University, relying upon the standard text books and materials. The Court is very much alive to the fact that on the basis of the earlier merit list prepared by the respondents, many candidates have already been appointed at different Zila Parishads for different subjects as Teacher Gr. III (Leve I & II), however as stated here-in-above, the application of erroneous model answer keys leading to erroneous results and erroneous appointments could not be maintained. The candidates appointed erroneously cannot be allowed to reap the benefits of wrongful appointments jeopardising the interests of meritorious and worthy candidates as held by the Apex Court in case of Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra). However, they having been appointed not for the fault on their part, or not on their misrepresentation, and are working on their respective posts for more than one year, a sympathetic view is required to be taken, if they do not figure in the fresh merit list that may be prepared as per this order.

In that view of the matter, the Court deems it proper to give the following directions:-

(i) The respondent No. 1-State Government in Panchayati Raj Department shall appoint an Expert Committee for preparing the model answer keys to the question papers of all subjects in respect of the examination held on 2/6/2012 for the posts of Teacher Gr. II (Level I & II) at different Districts. The said Expert Committee shall comprise of the experts who are either Readers or Senior Professors in Rajasthan University or a very learned and reputed persons in the concerned subject. They shall be appointed by the respondent No. 1 at the earliest and latest by 28/11/2014.

(ii) The said Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys, taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed for being taught in the schools and standard reference books used for colleges, published by the Education Boards or the State Government, or shall take recourse to other government publications or materials, which are officially put on the government website or used for the information of public at large, or to the publications of the books written by the authors recognized by the Government as the authority on a particular subject. The Expert Committee shall disclose the source of information relied upon by them for each of the answer keys, while submitting their reports to the respondent No. 1.

(iii) The Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys on or before 15/12/2014 and shall cause them to be put on the website of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department on the same date, inviting objections from the candidates who had appeared in the examination in question.

(iv) The candidates shall submit their objections before the concerned Expert Committee on or before 18/12/2014. The Expert Committee, after taking into consideration the objections, if any submitted by the candidates, shall prepare final model answer keys for each of the question papers of the concerned subjects and submit the same to the respondent No. 1 in the sealed cover not later than 22/12/2014.

(v) The respondent No. 1 shall prepare the merit list afresh of the selected candidates for being appointed in the respective Zila Parishads on the basis of the said model answer keys prepared by the experts committee as early as possible, and put on the Government website latest by 31/12/2014.

(vi) Since the fresh merit list would disturb the merit list prepared earlier by the respondents, entailing possible termination of the candidates already appointed and working on their respective posts at different Zila Parishads, it is directed that such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to the issuance of appointment letters on the basis of their merits as per the revised merit lists, shall pick up their appointments according to their inter se position in the respective merit list, however they would not be entitled to any backwages or any other benefits whatsoever.

(vii) Such of the candidates, who are already appointed and who also figure in the revised merit merit list, shall continue on their respective posts, and their appointments shall relate back to the date of their respective appointments with continuity of service for the purposes of seniority.

(viii) Such of the candidates who are already appointed but who do not figure in the revised merit list, may not be ousted from the service, if there is nothing adverse against them on record and if there are sufficient vacant posts in the respective Zila Parishads for the concerned subject, and as far as possible they shall be accommodated against such vacancies by placing them at the bottom of the revised merit list of the selected candidates.

(ix) It is further directed that the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department shall see to it that the time limit set by the Court is strictly adhered to the all concerned, failing which strict view shall be taken in the matter.

With the aforesaid directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. All the stay applications filed in the said writ petitions also stand disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be placed in each of the petitions. A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department forthwith for the due compliance of the order.