Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 46954699 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 1430614310/2017)
RISHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … RESPONDENT(S)
& ORS. ETC. ETC.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 47224725 of 2018 (arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 1915119154/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
14481/2017);
Civil Appeal Nos. 47004701 of 2018 (arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 1435614357/2017);
Civil Appeal Nos. 47114712 of 2018 (arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 1459314594/2017);
Civil Appeal Nos. 47074710 of 2018 (arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 1458114584/2017);
Civil Appeal No. 47034706 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)
No. 1452214525/2017);
Civil Appeal No. 4726 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
19157/2017);
Civil Appeal Nos. 47134720 of 2018 (arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 1494714954/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4721 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
18982/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4727 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
21506/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
29556/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
24264/2017)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SUSHMA KUMARI
BAJAJ
Date: 2020.02.22
12:28:33 IST
Reason:
2
Civil Appeal No. 4729 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
28724/2017)
Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
32467/2017)
C.A.No.4754 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11674/2018
(Diary No(s). 9579)2018
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Delay Condoned. Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals questions the judgment
delivered by Special Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan High
Court. The Special Appellate judgment of Rajasthan High
Court dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur and Judgment
dated 13.04.2017 delivered at Jaipur Bench, affirming the
judgments of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petitions filed by the appellants are under challenge.
3. The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam –
2015 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “Commission”), in which they
3
could not be declared successful. Brief facts giving
rise to these appeals are:
(i) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission
vide its advertisement dated 16.10.2015 advertised
13,000 posts of School Lecturers for various subjects
under Secondary Education Department, Government of
Rajasthan. The examination consisted of two papers –
PaperI – General Awareness and General Studies, and
PaperII of respective subjects. The examination was
conducted on 17.07.2016. On 12.08.2016, answer keys
were published inviting objections regarding the
answer key. Many candidates submitted objections
with regard to different subjects, with regard to
PaperI as well as PaperII. On 22.09.2016, the
Commission declared the result, against which several
writ petitions were filed questioning various answers
as per final answer key. The learned Single Judge
vide its judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 in Writ
Petition No. 15028/2016 Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs.
RPSC & Ors. d isposed of the writ petition with
various directions. One of the directions was to
4
upload the revised answer key along with report of
Experts on the website within one week. In pursuance
of directions of learned Single Judge dated
08.11.2016, final answer key was published on
18.11.2016 and 18 questions in PaperI were deleted.
Second round of litigations was started by filing
various Writ Petitions by the candidates raising
various objections to the answer key. The learned
Single Judge vide its judgment dated 08.02.2017 at
Jodhpur dismissed the bunch of writ petitions after
considering the objections raised by several writ
petitioners. Learned Single Judge accepted the
Expert Committee's report on various answers.
(ii) Against the judgment dated 08.02.2017, writ
appeals were filed by various candidates at Jodhpur.
The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 08.03.2017
dismissed the writ appeals confirming the judgment of
learned Single Judge. While dismissing the writ
appeals, various directions were issued by the
Division Bench to the Commission with regard to
preparation and publication of answer key and action
5
to be taken against those who are entrusted with the
preparation of key answers. At Jaipur also, writ
petitions were dismissed, against which writ appeals
were filed and vide judgment dated 13.04.2017,
following the judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at
Jodhpur, the Division Bench also dismissed the
different writ appeals.
(iii) Following judgment dated 08.03.2017, the
Division Bench both at Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissed
several other writ appeals. Before us, the appeals
filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 and
judgment dated 13.04.2017 and various other judgments
following earlier judgments have been filed. The
judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur Bench
is the main judgment which has been followed by the
High Court in several judgments for deciding this
batch of appeals. It shall be sufficient to refer to
and consider the Division Bench judgment dated
08.03.2017 giving rise to the Civil Appeal arising
out of SLP (C) Nos. 1430614310 of 2017 – Richal &
ors. etc.etc. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
6
Commission & ors. etc. etc. for deciding this batch
of appeals.
4. In this batch of appeals, various applications for
impleadment and intervention have been filed. We allow
all the impleadment and intervention applications. This
Court after hearing the matter on 16.01.2018 passed the
following order:
“The Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(RPSC) had issued an advertisement for filling
up of more than 13,000 posts of school
lecturers in the State of Rajasthan. The
written test was conducted pursuant thereto.
The key to the answers was also published.
Some of the candidates questioned that the
aforesaid key does not give correct answers to
some of the questions. It was mentioned that
few questions were not even correctly framed.
On that basis, a writ petition was filed in
the High Court. Learned Single Judge after
going into the said grievances of those
candidates gave a direction 4 for constituting
the Expert Committee to examine as to whether
the key to the answers is correct. The Expert
Committee gave its report recommending
deletion of 18 questions which according to
the Expert Committee were not correctly framed
and, therefore, needed to be deleted. It also
corrected the answers to some other questions.
This led to second round of litigation as
the petitioners herein (who were the writ
petitioners in the High Court) submitted that
even the aforesaid report of the Expert
Committee was not correct. It was submitted
7
that 13 questions were wrongly deleted. In
support of this, the petitioners refer to the
text books of the NCRT as per which those
questions were rightly framed and there was no
question to delete them. It was also submitted
that five questions were still wrongly framed,
which needed to be deleted or correct answers
as suggested by the Expert Committee be
corrected. The High Court has dismissed this
writ petition. It has inter alia observed that
the matter be given quietus inasmuch as it
would be in the public interest not to delay
the appointment of 13,000 teachers in the
State of Rajasthan.
We are informed that after declaration of
the result, successful candidates have already
been given appointment. It is pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that
many posts are still lying vacant. They
further submit that they have no objection if
the candidates who have already been
appointed, their appointment is not disturbed
and at the same time the grievances as pointed
out by the petitioners be looked into by the
Expert Committee again and if it finds
justification in the claim of the 5
petitioners, fully or partially, only cases of
other candidates who have not been appointed
be reexamined on the basis of the report that
would be given by the Expert Committee's
recommendations on these aspects. The learned
counsel for RPSC wants some time to take
instructions in this behalf.
List the matters on 06.02.2018.”
5. In pursuance of our directions dated 16.01.2018, an
Expert Committee was appointed to reexamine the
grievances of writ petitioners/appellants. An affidavit
8
dated 14.04.2018 sworned by Ramdev Siroya has been filed
by the Commission. It is stated in the affidavit that on
the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers in
all the nine subjects for which these Experts were
appointed has been reexamined and the answers were
revised. It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs 5 and
6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect:
"5. On the basis of reports of Experts,
overall 22 answers in all the nine
subjects for which these experts were
appointed to reexamine claims of
petitioners, were reported to be revised.
6. In the subjects of General Knowledge
(PaperI) answers to five questions were
required to be revised; in PaperII
(subject) in commerce answers of three
questions were required to be revised;
three questions in subject Geography, Two
Questions in subject Hindi (Teaching
method); in subject History one question;
in subject Political Science four
question; and in subject Rajasthani three
questions were reported to be revised. A
chart showing question numbers subject,
answer in final key and new Expert Report
is being filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE A1 (Pages 5) True and correct
copies of reports of Experts in nine
subjects is being filed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE A2 (Pages 646). It
is stated that identity of Experts is not
being disclosed. That on the basis of
reports of the experts the result of
candidates who have not been appointed
9
was revised by the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission.”
6. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that out of
total number of posts in all the subjects, 729 candidates
who were offered appointment did not join. Further, 316
candidates who were although selected but their
candidature were rejected. Thus in all 1045 posts
remained vacant. A detailed chart subject wise showing
all the details of posts advertised, candidates selected
and recommended and appointments, number of candidates
who did join and such candidates whose candidatures were
rejected etc. has also been annexed alongwith the
affidavit. It has been further stated in the affidavit
that in the present batch of appeals, there are in all
311 candidates. It is stated in the revised results
prepared after Report by Experts Committee 48 petitioners
from all the Special Leave Petitions are found to be in
merit for selection, which candidates are spread over in
nine subjects.
7. A reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by
Commission dated 14.04.2018 has also been filed in Civil
10
Appeal of Richal & Ors. In the reply affidavit, it has
been stated that the Commission has not disclosed the
actual marks secured by the last selected candidate in
terms of the first selection in various categories. It
was stated that the Commission is required to prepare a
Revised Notional Select List of candidates presently
selected in light of the revision undertaken by Experts
based on actual marks secured by the last selected
candidates in various categories. The appellants have
also brought on record the copy of representation dated
23.01.2018 submitted by them after the order of this
Court dated 16.01.2018.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants
at length as well as learned counsel appearing for the
Commission, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Rajasthan and learned counsel seeking impleadment and
intervention.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
although substantial grievances raised by the appellants
in these appeals stand satisfied by the Expert Committee
11
Report, which was appointed in pursuance of direction,
there are still few grievances after revision carried out
by the Experts. It is submitted that in revision also,
certain mistakes have not been corrected. Learned
counsel for the appellants in support of their submission
has referred to few questions of PaperI including
question No. 58 and certain other questions.
10. One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants is that the marks of 18 questions
which were deleted from paper No.1 were redistributed in
the rest of the questions whereas the marks should have
been allocated to only those candidates who have
attempted such questions. Those candidates, who even did
not attempt those questions, were allocated the marks
which was not in accordance with law. The marks should
have been allocated only to those candidates who
attempted deleted questions, in alternative, it is
submitted that full marks with regard to 18 deleted
questions ought to have been given to all the candidates.
11. Learned counsel for the Commission refuting the
submissions of the appellants submitted that almost all
12
the grievances having been taken care of by the Expert
Committee and the result of nonselected candidates
having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered
in these appeals. It is submitted that Experts having
revised the key answers and having now submitted a
Report, which has been accepted by the Commission, this
Court shall not permit the appellants to rechallenge the
decision of Expert Committee. It is submitted that out
of all the Special Leave Petitioners, only 48 have been
found selected.
12. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of
appeals relates to correctness of final key answers as
uploaded by the Commission after considering objections
thereto. The appellants' case is that the treatment of
the objections by the Expert Committee was not based on
authoritative text books on the subject and several
errors crept into the answer key vitiating the merits of
the candidates affecting the entire selection.
13
14. The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of
correctness of key answer had been considered by this
Court time and again. This Court had entertained such
challenges on very limited ground and has always given
due weight to the opinions of subject experts. A three
Judge Bench of this Court in Kanpur University, through
ViceChancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others,
1983 (4) SCC 309, had occasion to consider a case where
challenge was made to the key answers supplied by the
papersetter with regard to multiple choice of the
objective type test for admission in medical courses
through combined PreMedical Test. The High Court while
considering the challenge of the candidates to various
key answers accepted the challenge to different
questions. With regard to some of the questions the High
Court held that the key answer is not the correct answer.
This Court repelling the challenge made the following
observations in paragraphs 15 and 16:
“15. The findings of the High Court
raise a question of great importance to
the student community. Normally, one
would be inclined to the view, especially
if one has been a papersetter and an
examiner, that the key answer furnished
14
by the papersetter and accepted by the
University as correct, should not be
allowed to be challenged. One way of
achieving it is not to publish the key
answer at all. If the University had not
published the key answer along with the
result
of the Test, no controversy
would have arisen in this case. But that
is not a correct way of looking at these
matters which involve the future of
hundreds of students who are aspirants
for admission to professional courses. If
the key answer were kept secret in this
case, the remedy would have been worse
than the disease because, so many
students would have had to suffer the
injustice in silence. The publication of
the key answer has unravelled an unhappy
state of affairs to which the University
and the State Government must find a
solution. Their sense of fairness in
publishing the key answer has given them
an opportunity to have a closer look at
the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the
computer but the human system.
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on
behalf of the University, contended that
no challenge should be allowed to be made
to the correctness of a key answer
unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.
We agree that the key answer should be
assumed to be correct unless it is proved
to be wrong and that it should not be
held to be wrong by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say,
it must be such as no reasonable body of
men wellversed in the particular subject
would regard as correct. The contention
of the University is falsified in this
15
case by a large number of acknowledged
textbooks, which are commonly read by
students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no
room for doubt that the answer given by
the students is correct and the key
answer is incorrect.”
12. Following the above judgment in Kanpur University
( supra) this Court in Manish Ujwal and others vs.
Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others,
2005(13) SCC 744, reiterated the principle in following
words in paragraphs 9 and 10:
“9. In Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta considering a similar problem, this
Court held that there is an assumption
about the key answers being correct and
in case of doubt, the Court would
unquestionably prefer the key answers. It
is for this reason that we have not
referred to those key answers in respect
whereof there is a doubt as a result of
difference of opinion between the
experts. Regarding the key answers in
respect whereof the matter is beyond the
realm of doubt, this Court has held that
it would be unfair to penalise the
students for not giving an answer which
accords with the key answer, that is to
say, with an answer which is demonstrated
to be wrong. There is no dispute about
the aforesaid six key answers being
demonstrably wrong and this fact has
rightly not been questioned by the
learned counsel for the University. In
this view, students cannot be made to
16
suffer for the fault and negligence of
the University.
10. The High Court has committed a
serious illegality in coming to the
conclusion that “it cannot be said with
certainty that answers to the six
questions given in the key answers were
erroneous and incorrect”. As already
noticed, the key answers are palpably and
demonstrably erroneous. In that view of
the matter, the student community,
whether the appellants or intervenors or
even those who did not approach the High
Court or this Court, cannot be made to
suffer on account of errors committed by
the University. For the present, we say
no more because there is nothing on
record as to how this error crept up in
giving the erroneous key answers and who
was negligent. At the same time, however,
it is necessary to note that the
University and those who prepare the key
answers have to be very careful and
abundant caution is necessary in these
matters for more than one reason. We
mention few of those; first and paramount
reason being the welfare of the student
as a wrong key answer can result in the
merit being made a casualty. One can well
understand the predicament of a young
student at the threshold of his or her
career if despite giving correct answer,
the student suffers as a result of wrong
and demonstrably erroneous key answers;
the second reason is that the courts are
slow in interfering in educational
matters which, in turn, casts a higher
responsibility on the University while
preparing the key answers; and thirdly,
in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in
favour of the University and not in
17
favour of the students. If this attitude
of casual approach in providing key
answers is adopted by the persons
concerned, directions may have to be
issued for taking appropriate action,
including disciplinary action, against
those responsible for wrong and
demonstrably erroneous key answers, but
we refrain from issuing such directions
in the present case.”
13. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nank Dev
University vs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749,
had directed the University to revaluate the answers of 8
questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE.
This Court also disapproved the course adopted by the
University which has given the marks to all the students
who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of
whether someone had answered questions or not.
14. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh
Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4)
SCC 690 , where this Court had occasion to consider the
case pertaining to erroneous evaluation using the wrong
answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission invited
applications against the posts of Junior Engineer(Civil).
Selection process comprised of a written objective type
18
examination. Unsuccessful candidates assailed the
selection. Single Judge of the High Court referred the
“model answer key” to experts. Based on the report of the
experts, Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of
100 are wrong. The Single Judge held that the entire
examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the
appointments so made on the basis thereof. The Letters
Patent Appeal was filed by certain candidates which was
partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench modified the order passed by the
Single Judge and declared that the entire examination
need not be cancelled. The order of Division Bench was
challenged wherein this Court in paragraph 19 has held:
The submissions made by Mr Rao
“19.
are not without merit. 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 re
evaluated on the basis thereof. There
was, in the circumstances, no compelling
reason for directing a fresh examination
to be held by the Commission especially
when there was no allegation about any
malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives
that could possibly vitiate the earlier
examination to call for a fresh attempt
by all concerned. The process of re
evaluation of the answer scripts with
19
reference to the correct key will in
addition be less expensive apart from
being quicker. The process would also not
give any unfair advantage to anyone of
the candidates on account of the time lag
between the examination earlier held and
the one that may have been held pursuant
to the direction of the High Court.
Suffice it to say that the reevaluation
was and is a better option, in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
15. The key answers prepared by the papersetter or the
examining body is presumed to have been prepared after
due deliberations. To err is human. There are various
factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key
answers. The publication of key answers is a step to
achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to
candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An
opportunity to file objections against the key answers
uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness
and perfection in the process. The objections to the key
answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter
corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the
examining body. In the present case we have noted that
after considering the objections final key answers were
published by the Commission thereafter several writ
20
petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the
key answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court
repelled the challenge accepting the views of the
experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up
in this Court by filing these appeals.
16. This Court while hearing the appeals found substance
in some of the submissions raised before us and
appellants having satisfied this Court that certain
questions need reexamination by experts, this Court
issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant
to the directions of this Court the Expert Committee re
examined the questions with regard to which objections
were raised in these appeals. After the order of this
Court dated 16.01.2018 the Commission adopted Expert
Committee Report which reexamined the questions with
regard to which objections were raised before us in these
appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018 has been filed by
the Commission. The affidavit contains the following
statements:
(i) on the basis of the Report of
Experts, Answers to 22 Questions across
9 subjects were corrected and revised.
21
[p.23 pr.6 of Affidavit ] [Chart has
been annexed at p.5]
(ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted
by Experts w.r.t. Questions in Paper I
(General Awareness & General Studies) as
per Chart [p.5 of Affidavit] reveals
that:
(a) Experts accepted Petitioner’s
Representation and retained 3
questions (Q Nos. 53, 57, 60) of 18
earlier deleted questions.
(b) Experts accepted Petitioners’
Representation and corrected the
answer of 1 question (Q.No.3) in
the remaining 57 questions.
(c) Experts rejected Petitioners’
Representation seeking correction
of answer of 5 questions (Q. Nos.
25, 28, 33, 49, 58).
(iii) RPSC has stated that out of the
total number of Advertised posts(13,098)
1045 vacancies in the post of School
Lecturers still exist. [p.3 pr.7 of
Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed at
p.47]
(iv) RPSC has stated that 48 of 311
Special Leave Petitioners before this
Hon’ble Court are within merit for
selection as School Lecturers after
revision of their answer scripts.[ p.34
pr.8 of Affidavit]
17. By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to
supply the Report of the Expert Committee to all the
parties. The copies of the Report have been supplied.
22
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that substantial grievances raised
in these appeals have been redressed by the Expert
Committee. The representations made by the appellants
have been substantially accepted as noted above. However,
learned counsel for the appellants have contended that
certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still
not correct. Before us certain questions have been
pointed out which according to the appellants have not
been satisfactorily dealt with by the Expert Committee.
It shall suffice to refer to the question No.58 of paper
No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the
Expert Committee has accepted option No.4 as correct
option whereas correct option is option NO.3. Learned
counsel for the appellants has to make his point home has
placed before us the following chart:
| Question<br>No.58 | Option<br>Answers | RPSC<br>Answer | Expert<br>Report<br>(p.15) | Petitioner<br>Answer | Evidence in support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum<br>Number<br>of<br>Working<br>Hours<br>per week<br>for the<br>teacher | (1) 35<br>Teaching<br>Plus<br>Preparation<br>Hours<br>(2) 40<br>Teaching<br>plus | Option<br>4 | Option<br>4 | Option<br>3 | 1. The RTE Act<br>specifies that<br>“Minimum number of<br>working hours per<br>week for the<br>teacher : Forty<br>Five including<br>preparation hours” |
23
| in RTE<br>Act,<br>2009 is | preparation<br>hours<br>(3) 45<br>Teaching<br>Hours<br>(4) 45<br>Teaching<br>plus<br>preparation<br>hours | 2. RPSC asked same<br>question in School<br>Lecturer Exam 2013<br>and considered “45<br>Teaching Hours” as<br>correct Answer.<br>Expert Committee<br>has itself at p.15<br>quoted the RTE Act,<br>2009 quoted the<br>minimum teaching<br>hours as “45<br>Teaching including<br>Preparation Hours” |
|---|
18. At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first
blush, we also observed that there may be substance in
what is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants with regard to question No.21, however, when
we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given
by the Expert Committee, we are inclined to agree with
the answer given by the Expert Committee. The reason for
our accepting the opinion of the Expert Committee is as
follows: T he question No.58 which was asked was:“Minimum
Number of Working Hours per week for the teacher in RTE
Act, 2009 is”.
19. Thus answer had to indicate the number of working
hours. Notification has been issued under the RTE Act
24
where minimum teaching hours for a week is mentioned as :
“45 Teaching including Preparation Hours” . Thus minimum
number of working hours per week has been provided as 45
which figure includes both teaching and preparation
hours. The statutory provision uses the word teaching
including preparation hours whereas answer uses the words
teaching plus preparation hours. There is no dispute that
figure 45 is a correct figure only issue is with regard
to whether option No.3 is correct or option No.4. Option
No.3 mentions “ 45 Teaching Hours ”. The answer No.3 is
obviously not according to the statutory prescription
which provides “45 Teaching including Preparation Hours” .
Correct answer, thus, is option No.4 which mentions “45
Teaching plus preparation hours” . Instead of using the
word including as used in statutory provision the answer
uses word plus . When the figure 45 includes teaching as
well as preparation hours the use of word teaching plus
preparation hours connotes the same meaning. We, thus do
not find any substance in the above submission.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed
out several other questions in paper No.1 which according
25
to the learned counsel for the appellants have not been
correctly answered by the Expert Committee. We have
considered few more questions as pointed out and perused
the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of
the view that no error can be found with the answers of
the Expert Committee with regard to three more questions
which have been pointed out before us. The Expert
Committee, constituted to validation of answer key, has
gone through every objection raised by the appellants and
has satisfactorily answered the same. The Commission has
also accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and has
proceeded to revised the result of 311 appellants before
us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the Expert
Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need
to be implemented.
21. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is
that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been
redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that
either all the candidates should have been given equal
marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to
26
have been given only to those candidates who attempted
those questions.
22. The questions having been deleted from the answers,
the question paper has to be treated as containing the
question less the deleted questions. Redistribution of
marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to
be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a
uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to
the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all
the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed
of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers
which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any
fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks.
The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.
23. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is
mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311
appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view
that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the
candidates except those who have already been selected
needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018
it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those
27
who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view
that the Commission should revise the entire result of
all the candidates except those who have been selected
on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and
publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key
answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the
examination, they are entitled for revision of their
result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but
lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable
to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have
not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps
taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee
which was given the task of revising the key answers.
24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of
these appeals with the following directions:
(1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed
to revise the result of all the candidates including all
the appellants on the basis of Report of the Expert
Committee constituted in pursuance of our order dated
16.01.2018 and publish the revised result.
28
(2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need
not revise the result of all those candidates whose names
were included in the Select List earlier published. We
having already pointed out that the appointments shall
not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity
to revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be
undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included
in the Select List.
(3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks
of the last selected candidates in the respective
categories who were included in the Select List on the
basis of which appointments have been made by the
Commission.
(4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates
who achieve equal or more marks in their respective
categories shall be offered appointments against 1045
vacancies as has been mentioned by the Commission in
paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above.
(5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making
recommendations for appointments shall be completed by
29
the Commission within a period of three months from
today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps
thereafter.
..........................J.
( A.K. SIKRI )
..........................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
NEW DELHI,
MAY 03,2018.