Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:— Without entertaining the application filed by Mr. R.N. Mathur, the learned Senior Counsel, filed on behalf of successful candidates in the subject of Political Science, hearing has been accorded to Mr. R.N. Mathur to assist this Court as Intervenor.

2. By this common order, various writ petitions filed by the candidates, who had applied to the post of School Lecturer in various subjects in pursuance of Advertisement dated 16.10.2015, issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as ‘RPSC’) shall be decided together. In all the writ petitions, common grievance has been made that in the competitive examination held, answers as per answer key disclosed qua papers set out by the RPSC, is against the answers given in the well accepted text books and treatise on the subject. Hence, it it prayed that the respondents be directed to revise the answer key of General Knowledge Paper-I and Paper-II of various subjects in which petitioners had appeared.

3. Briefly stated, on 16.10.2015, RPSC issued an advertisement for recruitment of 3163 School Lecturers in the subject of Hindi, 1191 in the Geography, 8 in Rajasthani, 11 in Social Science, 136 in Drawing, 860 in English, 356 in Sanskrit, 1968 in History, 822 in Physics, 276 in Maths, 107 in Home Science, 799 in Chemistry, 598 in Biology, 197 in Commerce, 180 in Economics, 2 in Music, 2 in Sindhi and 2234 in I Political Science. The above requisition was qua the scheduled area. Qua non-scheduled area, recruitment was to be made for 74 School Lecturers for the subject of Hindi, 1 for Philosophy, 19 for Geography, 9 for Drawing, 8 for Sanskrit, 50 for Commerce, 1 for Biology, 4 for Sindhi and 22 for Political Science.

4. In pursuance of the advertisement issued, petitioners to all the writ petitions had applied for the post of School Lecturer in various subjects. After the application forms submitted by the petitioners were found in order, they appeared in the competitive examination held by the RPSC.

5. On 17.7.2016, all the candidates undertook paper of General Knowledge called as Paper-I. On 20.7.2016, the candidates also undertook paper of the respective subjects for which they intended to be recruited as School Lecturers. Paper of respective subject was called Paper-II.

6. The present writ petitions have been filed by the candidates who had appeared on 20.7.2016 in the Paper-II pertaining to subject of Political Science, History, Hindi, Geography, Chemistry, Physics and Drawing, respectively.

7. It is admitted fact that on 4.8.2016, RPSC had uploaded the answer key to the question papers inviting candidates to file their objections. The objections were to be filed within three days.

8. Mr. M.F. Baig, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Commission has submitted that different dates were prescribed qua each subjects for submission of objections. Mr. M.F. Baig has taken a stand that after the objections were filed, RPSC qua each subject constituted a panel of experts and minimum composition of the expert panel was two members. It is stated that experts examined the objections submitted by the candidates and thereafter, the RPSC has revised the answer keys. To this an extent, there is no dispute between the parties.

9. It is to be noticed that qua the previous examinations conducted for recruitment to various services of the State, by the respondent RPSC, credibility of RPSC has suffered to some extent. Earlier examinations held by RPSC and the reports submitted by the experts have been made subject matter of litigation and in the previous rounds of litigation, necessarily opinion of the experts has not been accepted by the courts. Thus, the learned counsel for the parties are in their arms to dispute the credibility of the experts and revision of the answer key undertaken by them. It is stated that past experience require that this court should scrutinize the revised answer key by the experts and also credential of the experts.

10. It is well settled legal position that the court cannot substitute its opinion with the opinion of the experts.

11. This Court is conscious that the Supreme Court on numerous occasions has repeatedly held that in academic matters, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its opinion as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to the opinion formulated by professional men possessing technical expertize and rich experience of actual day to day knowledge of practical field of education or subject. Academic matters should be left to the experts having experience and knowledge of the subject.

12. It is also well settled legal position that evaluation by the examiner is final and same cannot be questioned in the court of law until some palpable wrong has been committed which will shake the conscious of community having expertise in the subject.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that for the total post of 13098 School Lecturers in the State of Rajasthan more than five lakhs prospective teachers who have obtained education upto Post Graduation and Degree in Education (B.Ed.) have applied. Number of the candidates have already obtained Ph.D. qualification. Therefore, it is not only necessary to ensure quality in the recruitment of teachers, but it also equally imperative that the system of the recruitment of teachers should inspire trust and faith in the residents of State of Rajasthan.

14. To remove any kind of doubt in the mind of prospective candidates, that the system is not fair, it is necessary that sanctity of examination is ensured in the eyes of public at large so as to inspire their trust. It is necessary that RPSC should follow highest standards of the transparency so that name and reputation of RPSC is held in esteem by the candidates and residents of State of Rajasthan.

15. Therefore, this court will reject the submission advanced by Mr. M.F. Baig that answer key given by the experts be kept in sealed cover and the same be not shared with the candidates as there is apprehension that such a course will lead to multiplicity of litigation. The learned counsel has submitted that the RPSC be permitted to keep everything under the wrap till the selection process is completed and result is announced.

16. This Court rejects the argument raised by Mr. M.F. Baig believing in the fairness of the persons at the helm of the affairs at RPSC, as this Court believes that the RPSC has nothing to hide in their cupboard. Transparency not tonly inspire confidence of the persons in the system but also ensure that merit is only yardstick to which RPSC is committed and RPSC shall make every effort that the teachers are spotted on the touchstone of merit alone. This Court shall follow the maxim that fairness in recruitment should not only be followed but should also appear to have been followed. Therefore, to achieve highest standards of transparency, following directions are issued:—

(a) That the revised answer key alongwith report of experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order.

(b) That after the needful is done by the RPSC, no objections shall be entertained by RPSC and the revised answer key shall be final and shall be followed by RPSC for computation of the result.

(c) That only qua the answer to the question which as per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is unacceptable to the experts having authority in the subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge made to the revised answer key and if two views are possible due credence shall be given to the one view if same is in consonance with the revised answer key approved by the experts.

(d) That for a period of fifteen days, after uploading of the revised answer key, the computation of the result shall be kept in abeyance to enable any aggrieved person to approach the court in case revised answer key to a question is palpably wrong and is against all the accepted principles or cannons of the subject.

(e) That in pursuance of the selection made, any appointment/posting letter already issued, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen days from receipt of certified copy of this order by RPSC and the State Government.

17. A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. M.F. Baig and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Government Counsel for onward transmission and necessary compliance.