AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog,CJ
By a common judgment dated 8th February, 2017, 16 writ petitions filed have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The three captioned
appeals have been filed by the appellants: Satish Kumar Sharma, Anju Meena and Anu Shree Pradhan. It appears that the other writ petitioners are
satisfied with the impugned judgment.
To fill up posts in the State Service and State Subordinate Service, RPSC issued an advertisement on 18.6.2013 inviting applications from the
eligible candidates. Under the caption: ‘Important Notes’ it was notified to the prospective candidates vide Clause (C) that answers could be
attempted to the various questions either in Hindi or English. Not in both languages. It was also indicated that for language papers, answer in
concerned language and script has to be given unless directed otherwise to be written in Hindi or English.
Four papers had to be attempted by the candidates. Each paper having 200 marks. Paper-I was for General Studies-1. Paper-II was for General
Studies-2. Paper-III was for General Studies-3 and Paper-IV was for General Hindi and General English.
Dispute with which the learned Single Judge was concerned, and so are we, in the appeals concerns questions No.6 and 7 each carrying ‘5’
marks in Paper-IV i.e. General Hindi and General English.
The two questions are in devnagari script but the dialect is in Rajasthani. Pertaining to the two questions the direction is to answer the questions in
Rajasthani language.
After the results were declared the appellants filed writ petitions pleading that the two questions need to be deleted for the reason the advertisement
clearly indicated to the candidates that the question papers had to be attempted either in Hindi or in English. Clause (C)Â of the advertisement under
the caption ‘Important Notes’ requiring an answer to be given in the concerned language related only to a language paper. That PaperIV in
which the two questions were put was a part of General Hindi and General English.
Dismissing the writ petitions filed the learned Single Judge has reasoned that the syllabus made known to the candidates that their knowledge would
be tested, amongst others, on the dialect spoken in Rajasthan as also Rajasthani literature. The learned Single Judge has reasoned that therefore the
questions were as per the syllabus and thus no prejudice on said count has resulted to the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge has also further
reasoned that the syllabus required knowledge of Rajasthani language and thus the direction qua the two questions i.e. to be answered in Rajasthani
language was not an error committed. The learned Single Judge has further highlighted that the three appellants attempted both questions in Rajasthani
dialect. The answers were evaluated and marks were assigned. Satish Kumar Sharma wrongly answered the first question and was thus assigned
‘0’ mark. For the second question he was assigned one mark. Similar was the position regarding Anu Shree Pradhan. Anju Meena was given
‘2’ marks for the first question and ‘0’ mark for the second. Meaning thereby, the learned Single Judge has found that no prejudice was
caused to the appellants.
The arguments in the appeals are:-
(i) There is no language known as Rajasthani. In Rajasthan various dialects are spoken but the script is devnagari. In other words the argument is that
the direction to answer the two questions in Rajasthani language was inherently flawed because there is no language known as Rajasthani.
(ii) The candidates were clearly told to attempt the answers in Hindi or in English. Only pertaining to language paper was it permissible to require the
answer to be in the language concerned. It was argued that Paper-IV was in General Hindi and General English. It was not a language paper.
Concerning the second contention urged, suffice it to state that Paper-IV was for General Hindi and General English; and Hindi and English are
languages. That the syllabus made it known to the candidates that their knowledge would be tested on Rajasthani script and Rajasthani literature
meant that the RPSC could test the knowledge of the candidates on Rajasthani literature with dialect in Rajasthani. By Rajasthani language it has to
be understood the various dialects spoken of in Rajasthan and indeed the appellants so understood, evident by the fact that each one of them
attempted the two questions.
Thus, the contention that the direction for the two questions requiring the same to be answered in Rajasthani language fouled the advertisement is
noted and rejected. The paper No.IV was for language i.e. Hindi and English. Clause (C) of the advertisement applies. It clearly records that qua a
language paper the candidate could be required to answer a question in the language concerned.
Regarding the first contention urged, the answer has already been given by us while dealing with the second contention urged. Technically it may
be correct that under the Constitution, Rajasthani as a language has not been enlisted but understood from a common sense point of view, any
person would understand that it would be in dialect of the devnagari script which is spoken of in the different regions in Rajasthan, for example in
marwar area the language is marwari and in mewad it is mewadi etc.
We terminate our opinion by affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge and simply highlight that neither appellant was handicapped by
any alleged ambiguity which could possibly arise, for the reason each one of them has attempted the two questions in dispute in the dialect spoken of
in Rajasthan.
The appeals are dismissed.