RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC. on 3 May 2018

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 983

RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.

v.

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

& ORS. ETC. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4695-4699 of 2018)

MAY 03, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Service Law – State Public Service Commission advertisedposts of School Lecturers for various subjects under SecondaryEducation Department – Examination was conducted – Answer keyswere published – Commission invited objections regarding theanswer key – Candidates submitted objections – Commissiondeclared the result – Appellants contended that certain questionsneed re-examination by experts – Supreme Court issued directionsthat certain questions needed re-examination by experts – Pursuantthereto, Expert committee re-examined the objections and the reportwas filed by the Commission – Appellants contended that in revisionalso, certain mistakes have not been corrected – Held: Challengesrelating to correctness of answer key has to be entertained on avery limited ground and due weight has to be given to the opinionof the subject experts – In instant case, the Expert Committee,constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through everyobjection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answeredthe same – The Commission has also accepted the report of theExpert Committee and has proceeded to revise the results ofappellants – Thus, report of the Expert Committee which has beenaccepted by the Commission has to be implemented.

Service Law – State Public Service Commission conductedexamination – Answer keys published – Commission invitedobjections regarding the answer key – Appellants contended thatcertain questions need re-examination by experts – Supreme Courtissued directions that certain questions needed re-examination byexperts – Pursuant thereto, expert committee re-examined theobjections and the report was filed by the Commission – However,Commission revised the result of only 311 appellants – Held:

983

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

ACommission should revise the entire result of all the candidates –Key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates exceptthose who have already been selected needs to be redetermined –When the key answers of the candidates who appeared in theexamination are correct, they are entitled for revision of their result,since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with examinationBbody – It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to thosecandidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with thesteps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committeewhich was given the task of revising the key answers – Equity.

Disposing of the appeals, the CourtC

HELD: 1. The appellants have pointed out several questionsin paper which according to them have not been correctlyanswered by the Expert Committee. However, the answers givenby the Expert Committee are correct and no error can be foundwith the answers of the Expert Committee with regard to theDquestions which have been pointed out. The Expert Committee,constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through everyobjection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answeredthe same. The Commission has also accepted the Report of theExpert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result ofE311 appellants. Thus, the Report of the Expert Committee whichhas been accepted by the Commission need to be implemented.[Para 20]

2. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentionedthat the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who areFbefore this Court. The key answers having been corrected, meritof all the candidates except those who have already been selectedneeds to be redetermined. The Commission should revise theentire result of all the candidates except those who have beenselected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee andpublish revised result of all the candidates. When the key answersGare correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination,they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does notlie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shallnot be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidateswho have not come to the Court being satisfied with the stepsHtaken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which was given the task of revising the key answers.[Para 23][999-D-F]

Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and othersv. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984]1 SCR 73; Manish Ujwal and others v. MaharishiDayanand Saraswati University and others (2005) 13SCC 744 – relied on.

Guru Nank Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others(2005) 13 SCC 749; Rajesh Kumar and others v. Stateof Bihar and others (2013) 4 SCC 690 : [2013]4 SCR 753; Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors.dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 ofRajasthan High Court – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4695-4699 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Sp.. Appl. Writ Nos.191, 206, 209, & 230 of 2017.

WITH

C. A. Nos. 4722-4725, 4702, 4700-4701, 4711-4712, 4707-4710,4703-4706, 4726, 4713-4720, 4721, 4727, 4730, 4728, 4729, 4731 and4754 of 2018.

N. K. Mody, Vikash Singh, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Advs.,Ankur Mody, Ms. Siddhi Padia, Ms. Santosh Sharma, Pardeep Gupta,Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Moazzam Ali, Wazir Singh Malik, Dr.(Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Prasant Agarwal, Sagar Kumar, Mukesh KumarSingh, L. M. Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Ms. SushmaSingh, R. Singh Chhillar, M/s Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., MukeshKumar Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, V. Vyas, Rajiv Kumar,Shantanu J., Anil Kumar Gautam, Ankur, Syed Mahaboob, P. Jegan, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

APurushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, V. Vyas, AbhishekTripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Brijeshj Kalappa,Neelkanth D., Ankolekar Gurudatta, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Amita,Amit, Prashant Bhushan, Govind Jee, Omanakuttan K.K., Ms. ArchanaPathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Rathi, Utsav, Advs. for theAppellants.B

Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Surya Kant, Pranav Vyas, Ms. ShifaliJain, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Aditya Pushkal Khanna, Anish Kumar Gupta,Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Harsha, Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Ms. Priyanka,Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Milind Kumar, Rohit K.Singh, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari,CP. Saravanaraja, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.

2. This batch of appeals questions the judgment delivered byDSpecial Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan High Court. The SpecialAppellate judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 08.03.2017 deliveredat Jodhpur and Judgment dated 13.04.2017 delivered at Jaipur Bench,affirming the judgments of learned Single Judge dismissing the writpetitions filed by the appellants are under challenge.E3. The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam – 2015

3. The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam – 2015conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referredto as “Commission”), in which they could not be declared successful.Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are:-

(i) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide itsFadvertisement dated 16.10.2015 advertised 13,000 posts of SchoolLecturers for various subjects under Secondary EducationDepartment, Government of Rajasthan. The examinationconsisted of two papers – Paper-I – General Awareness andGeneral Studies, and Paper-II of respective subjects. Theexamination was conducted on 17.07.2016. On 12.08.2016, answerGkeys were published inviting objections regarding the answer key.Many candidates submitted objections with regard to differentsubjects, with regard to Paper-I as well as Paper-II. On22.09.2016, the Commission declared the result, against whichseveral writ petitions were filed questioning various answers as H

per final answer key. The learned Single Judge vide its judgmentand order dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 -Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors. disposed of the writpetition with various directions. One of the directions was to uploadthe revised answer key along with report of Experts on the websitewithin one week. In pursuance of directions of learned SingleJudge dated 08.11.2016, final answer key was published on18.11.2016 and 18 questions in Paper-I were deleted. Secondround of litigations was started by filing various Writ Petitions bythe candidates raising various objections to the answer key. Thelearned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 08.02.2017 at Jodhpurdismissed the bunch of writ petitions after considering theobjections raised by several writ petitioners. Learned Single Judgeaccepted the Expert Committee’s report on various answers.

(ii) Against the judgment dated 08.02.2017, writ appeals werefiled by various candidates at Jodhpur. The Division Bench videits judgment dated 08.03.2017 dismissed the writ appeals confirmingthe judgment of learned Single Judge. While dismissing the writappeals, various directions were issued by the Division Bench tothe Commission with regard to preparation and publication ofanswer key and action to be taken against those who are entrustedwith the preparation of key answers. At Jaipur also, writ petitionswere dismissed, against which writ appeals were filed and videjudgment dated 13.04.2017, following the judgment dated08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur, the Division Bench also dismissedthe different writ appeals.

(iii) Following judgment dated 08.03.2017, the Division Bench bothat Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissed several other writ appeals. Beforeus, the appeals filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 andjudgment dated 13.04.2017 and various other judgments followingearlier judgments have been filed. The judgment dated 08.03.2017delivered at Jodhpur Bench is the main judgment which has beenfollowed by the High Court in several judgments for deciding thisbatch of appeals. It shall be sufficient to refer to and consider theDivision Bench judgment dated 08.03.2017 giving rise to the CivilAppeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14306-14310 of 2017 – Richal& ors. etc.etc. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission &ors. etc. etc. for deciding this batch of appeals.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

4. In this batch of appeals, various applications for impleadmentand intervention have been filed. We allow all the impleadment andintervention applications. This Court after hearing the matter on16.01.2018 passed the following order:-

“The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) hadissued an advertisement for filling up of more than 13,000posts of school lecturers in the State of Rajasthan. The writtentest was conducted pursuant thereto. The key to the answerswas also published. Some of the candidates questioned thatthe aforesaid key does not give correct answers to some ofthe questions. It was mentioned that few questions were noteven correctly framed. On that basis, a writ petition was filedin the High Court. Learned Single Judge after going into thesaid grievances of those candidates gave a direction 4 forconstituting the Expert Committee to examine as to whetherthe key to the answers is correct. The Expert Committee gaveits report recommending deletion of 18 questions whichaccording to the Expert Committee were not correctly framedand, therefore, needed to be deleted. It also corrected theanswers to some other questions.

B

C

D

This led to second round of litigation as the petitioners hereinE(who were the writ petitioners in the High Court) submittedthat even the aforesaid report of the Expert Committee wasnot correct. It was submitted that 13 questions were wronglydeleted. In support of this, the petitioners refer to the textbooks of the NCRT as per which those questions were rightlyframed and there was no question to delete them. It was alsoFsubmitted that five questions were still wrongly framed, whichneeded to be deleted or correct answers as suggested by theExpert Committee be corrected. The High Court has dismissedthis writ petition. It has inter alia observed that the matter begiven quietus inasmuch as it would be in the public interestGnot to delay the appointment of 13,000 teachers in the Stateof Rajasthan.

E

G

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 H

RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

that many posts are still lying vacant. They further submitthat they have no objection if the candidates who have alreadybeen appointed, their appointment is not disturbed and at thesame time the grievances as pointed out by the petitioners belooked into by the Expert Committee again and if it findsjustification in the claim of the 5 petitioners, fully or partially,only cases of other candidates who have not been appointedbe re-examined on the basis of the report that would be givenby the Expert Committee’s recommendations on these aspects.The learned counsel for RPSC wants some time to takeinstructions in this behalf.

List the matters on 06.02.2018.”

5. In pursuance of our directions dated 16.01.2018, an ExpertCommittee was appointed to re-examine the grievances of writpetitioners/appellants. An affidavit dated 14.04.2018 sworned by RamdevSiroya has been filed by the Commission. It is stated in the affidavit thaton the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers in all the ninesubjects for which these Experts were appointed has been re-examinedand the answers were revised. It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs5 and 6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect:- “5. On the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers inall the nine subjects for which these experts were appointedto re-examine claims of petitioners, were reported to be revised.

6. In the subjects of General Knowledge (Paper-I) answersto five questions were required to be revised; in Paper-II(subject) in commerce answers of three questions were requiredto be revised; three questions in subject Geography, TwoQuestions in subject Hindi (Teaching method); in subjectHistory one question; in subject Political Science fourquestion; and in subject Rajasthani three questions werereported to be revised. A chart showing question numberssubject, answer in final key and new Expert Report is beingfiled herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (Pages 5)Trueand correct copies of reports of Experts in nine subjects isbeing filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 (Pages6-46). It is stated that identity of Experts is not beingdisclosed. That on the basis of reports of the experts the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aresult of candidates who have not been appointed was revisedby the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.”

6. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that out of total numberof posts in all the subjects, 729 candidates who were offered appointmentdid not join. Further, 316 candidates who were although selected butBtheir 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 ofcandidates who did join and such candidates whose candidatures wererejected etc. has also been annexed alongwith the affidavit. It has beenfurther stated in the affidavit that in the present batch of appeals, thereCare in all 311 candidates. It is stated in the revised results prepared afterReport by Experts Committee 48 petitioners from all the Special LeavePetitions are found to be in merit for selection, which candidates arespread over in nine subjects.

7. A reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by Commission datedD14.04.2018 has also been filed in Civil Appeal of Richal & Ors. In thereply affidavit, it has been stated that the Commission has not disclosedthe actual marks secured by the last selected candidate in terms of thefirst selection in various categories. It was stated that the Commission isrequired to prepare a Revised Notional Select List of candidates presentlyEselected in light of the revision undertaken by Experts based on actualmarks secured by the last selected candidates in various categories.The appellants have also brought on record the copy of representationdated 23.01.2018 submitted by them after the order of this Court dated16.01.2018.F8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at lengthas well as learned counsel appearing for the Commission, learned counselappearing for the State of Rajasthan and learned counsel seekingimpleadment and intervention.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that althoughGsubstantial grievances raised by the appellants in these appeals standsatisfied by the Expert Committee Report, which was appointed inpursuance of direction, there are still few grievances after revision carriedout by the Experts. It is submitted that in revision also, certain mistakeshave not been corrected. Learned counsel for the appellants in supportof their submission has referred to few questions of Paper-I includingHquestion No. 58 and certain other questions.

10. One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for theappellants is that the marks of 18 questions which were deleted frompaper No.1 were redistributed in the rest of the questions whereas themarks should have been allocated to only those candidates who haveattempted such questions. Those candidates, who even did not attemptthose questions, were allocated the marks which was not in accordancewith law. The marks should have been allocated only to those candidateswho attempted deleted questions, in alternative, it is submitted that fullmarks with regard to 18 deleted questions ought to have been given toall the candidates.

11. Learned counsel for the Commission refuting the submissionsof the appellants submitted that almost all the grievances having beentaken care of by the Expert Committee and the result of non-selectedcandidates having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered inthese appeals. It is submitted that Experts having revised the key answersand having now submitted a Report, which has been accepted by theCommission, this Court shall not permit the appellants to re-challengethe decision of Expert Committee. It is submitted that out of all theSpecial Leave Petitioners, only 48 have been found selected.

12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and perused the records.

13. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of appealsrelates to correctness of final key answers as uploaded by theCommission after considering objections thereto. The appellants’ caseis that the treatment of the objections by the Expert Committee was notbased on authoritative text books on the subject and several errors creptinto the answer key vitiating the merits of the candidates affecting theentire selection.

14. The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of correctnessof key answer had been considered by this Court time and again. ThisCourt had entertained such challenges on very limited ground and hasalways given due weight to the opinions of subject experts. A threeJudge Bench of this Court in Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, 1983 (4) SCC309, had occasion to consider a case where challenge was made to thekey answers supplied by the paper-setter with regard to multiple choiceof the objective type test for admission in medical courses through A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Acombined Pre-Medical Test. The High Court while considering thechallenge of the candidates to various key answers accepted the challengeto different questions. With regard to some of the questions the HighCourt held that the key answer is not the correct answer. This Courtrepelling the challenge made the following observations in paragraphs15 and 16:B

“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question ofgreat importance to the student community. Normally, onewould be inclined to the view, especially if one has been apaper-setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnishedby the paper-setter and accepted by the University as correct,should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achievingit is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University hadnot published the key answer along with the result ofthe Test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. Butthat is not a correct way of looking at these matters whichinvolve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants C

D

for admission to professional courses. If the key answer werekept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worsethan the disease because, so many students would have hadto suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the keyanswer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to whichthe University and the State Government must find a solution.Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has giventhem an opportunity to have a closer look at the system ofexaminations which they conduct. What has failed is not thecomputer but the human system.

E

F

E

F

16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University,contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made tothe correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it iswrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed tobe correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it shouldnot be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoningor by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearlydemonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as noreasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subjectwould regard as correct. The contention of the University isfalsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged G

H

textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Thosetextbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given bythe 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 DayanandSaraswati University and others, 2005(13) SCC 744, reiterated theprinciple in following words in paragraphs 9 and 10:

“9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta considering asimilar problem, this Court held that there is an assumptionabout the key answers being correct and in case of doubt,the Court would unquestionably prefer the key answers. It isfor this reason that we have not referred to those key answersin respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference ofopinion between the experts. Regarding the key answers inrespect whereof the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, thisCourt has held that it would be unfair to penalise the studentsfor not giving an answer which accords with the key answer,that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to bewrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six key answersbeing demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not beenquestioned by the learned counsel for the University. In thisview, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault andnegligence of the University.

10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in comingto the conclusion that “it cannot be said with certainty thatanswers to the six questions given in the key answers wereerroneous and incorrect”. As already noticed, the key answersare palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of thematter, the student community, whether the appellants orintervenors or even those who did not approach the HighCourt or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account oferrors committed by the University. For the present, we sayno more because there is nothing on record as to how thiserror crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and whowas negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary tonote that the University and those who prepare the key answershave to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary inthese matters for more than one reason. We mention few of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athose; first and paramount reason being the welfare of thestudent as a wrong key answer can result in the merit beingmade a casualty. One can well understand the predicamentof a young student at the threshold of his or her career ifdespite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a resultof wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; theBsecond reason is that the courts are slow in interfering ineducational matters which, in turn, casts a higherresponsibility on the University while preparing the keyanswers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes infavour of the University and not in favour of the students. IfCthis attitude of casual approach in providing key answers isadopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to beissued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinaryaction, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrablyerroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing suchdirections in the present case.”D

13. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nank Dev Universityvs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749, had directed theUniversity to revaluate the answers of 8 questions with reference to keyanswers provided by CBSE. This Court also disapproved the courseadopted by the University which has given the marks to all the studentsEwho had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someonehad answered questions or not.

14. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh Kumar andothers vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4) SCC 690, where thisCourt had occasion to consider the case pertaining to erroneous evaluationFusing the wrong answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commissioninvited applications against the posts of Junior Engineer(Civil). Selectionprocess comprised of a written objective type examination. Unsuccessfulcandidates assailed the selection. Single Judge of the High Court referredthe “model answer key” to experts. Based on the report of the experts,GSingle Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 are wrong. TheSingle Judge held that the entire examination was liable to be cancelledand so also the appointments so made on the basis thereof. The LettersPatent Appeal was filed by certain candidates which was partly allowedby the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench modifiedthe order passed by the Single Judge and declared that the entireH

examination need not be cancelled. The order of Division Bench waschallenged wherein this Court in paragraph 19 has held:

“19. The submissions made by Mr Rao are not without merit.Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the mostnatural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of thescripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in thecircumstances, no compelling reason for directing a freshexamination to be held by the Commission especially whenthere was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud orcorrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlierexamination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. Theprocess of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with referenceto the correct key will in addition be less expensive apartfrom being quicker. The process would also not give any unfairadvantage to anyone of the candidates on account of thetime lag between the examination earlier held and the onethat may have been held pursuant to the direction of the HighCourt. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is abetter option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

15. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examiningbody is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To erris human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of theincorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achievetransparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess thecorrectness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections againstthe key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairnessand perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are tobe examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any,should be taken by the examining body. In the present case we havenoted that after considering the objections final key answers werepublished by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filedchallenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by theCommission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the viewsof the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in thisCourt by filing these appeals.

16. This Court while hearing the appeals found substance in someof the submissions raised before us and appellants having satisfied this ABC

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt that certain questions need re-examination by experts, this Courtissued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant to the directionsof this Court the Expert Committee re-examined the questions with regardto which objections were raised in these appeals. After the order of thisCourt dated 16.01.2018 the Commission adopted Expert CommitteeReport which re-examined the questions with regard to which objectionsBwere raised before us in these appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018has been filed by the Commission. The affidavit contains the followingstatements:

(i) on the basis of the Report of Experts, Answers to 22Questions across 9 subjects were corrected and revised. [p.2-C3 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:

D(a) Experts accepted Petitioner’s Representation andretained 3 questions (Q Nos. 53, 57, 60) of 18 earlierdeleted questions.

(b) Experts accepted Petitioners’ Representation andcorrected the answer of 1 question (Q.No.3) in theEremaining 57 questions.

(c) Experts rejected Petitioners’ Representation seekingcorrection of answer of 5 questions (Q. Nos. 25, 28, 33,49, 58).

(iii) RPSC has stated that out of the total number of AdvertisedFposts(13,098) 1045 vacancies in the post of School Lecturersstill exist. [p.3 pr.7 of Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed atp.47]

(iv) RPSC has stated that 48 of 311 Special Leave Petitionersbefore this Hon’ble Court are within merit for selection asGSchool Lecturers after revision of their answer scripts.[p.3-4pr.8 of Affidavit]

17. By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to supplythe Report of the Expert Committee to all the parties. The copies of theReport have been supplied. During the course of hearing, learned counsel H

for the appellants submitted that substantial grievances raised in theseappeals have been redressed by the Expert Committee. Therepresentations made by the appellants have been substantially acceptedas noted above. However, learned counsel for the appellants havecontended that certain answers given by the Expert Committee are stillnot correct. Before us certain questions have been pointed out whichaccording to the appellants have not been satisfactorily dealt with by theExpert Committee. It shall suffice to refer to the question No.58 ofpaper No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the ExpertCommittee has accepted option No.4 as correct option whereas correctoption is option NO.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has to makehis point home has placed before us the following chart:

18. At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first blush, wealso observed that there may be substance in what is contended by thelearned counsel for the appellants with regard to question No.21, however,when we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given by theExpert Committee, we are inclined to agree with the answer given bythe Expert Committee. The reason for our accepting the opinion of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AExpert Committee is as follows: The question No.58 which was askedwas:”Minimum Number of Working Hours per week for the teacherin RTE Act, 2009 is”.

19. Thus answer had to indicate the number of working hours.Notification has been issued under the RTE Act where minimum teachingBhours for a week is mentioned as : “45 Teaching including PreparationHours”. Thus minimum number of working hours per week has beenprovided as 45 which figure includes both teaching and preparation hours.The statutory provision uses the wordteaching including preparationhourswhereas answer uses the words teaching plus preparationhours.There is no dispute that figure 45 is a correct figure only issue isCwith regard to whether option No.3 is correct or option No.4. OptionNo.3 mentions “45 Teaching Hours”. The answer No.3 is obviouslynot according to the statutory prescription which provides “45 Teachingincluding Preparation Hours”. Correct answer, thus, is option No.4which mentions “45 Teaching plus preparation hours”. Instead ofDusing the word including as used in statutory provision the answeruses word plus. When the figure 45 includes teaching as well aspreparation hours the use of word teaching plus preparation hoursconnotes the same meaning. We, thus do not find any substance in theabove submission.E20. Learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed out severalother questions in paper No.1 which according to the learned counselfor the appellants have not been correctly answered by the ExpertCommittee. We have considered few more questions as pointed out andperused the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of theview that no error can be found with the answers of the Expert CommitteeFwith regard to three more questions which have been pointed out beforeus. The Expert Committee, constituted to validation of answer key, hasgone through every objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorilyanswered the same. The Commission has also accepted the Report ofthe Expert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result of 311Gappellants before us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the ExpertCommittee which has been accepted by the Commission need to beimplemented.

21. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is that marksof deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions.HIt is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been givenonly to those candidates who attempted those questions.

22. The questions having been deleted from the answers, thequestion paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deletedquestions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannotbe said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted auniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number ofthe candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have beenbenefited by the redistributed of marks in accordance with the numberof correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do notfind any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks. TheHigh Court has rightly approved the said methodology.

23. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned thatthe result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before thisCourt. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected,merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selectedneeds to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018 it is mentionedthat this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected.We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entireresult of all the candidates except those who have been selected on thebasis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revise result of allthe candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidateswho appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of theirresult, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with theexamination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit tothose candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied withthe steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committeewhich was given the task of revising the key answers.

24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of theseappeals with the following directions:

(1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revisethe result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the basis ofReport of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of our orderdated 16.01.2018 and publish the revised result.

(2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need notrevise the result of all those candidates whose names were included inthe Select List earlier published. We having already pointed out that the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappointments shall not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessityto revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be undertaken excludingall the candidates who are included in the Select List.

(3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks of thelast selected candidates in the respective categories who were includedBin the Select List on the basis of which appointments have been made bythe Commission.

(4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieveequal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offeredappointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by theCCommission in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above.

(5) The entire exercise of revising the result and makingrecommendations for appointments shall be completed by the Commissionwithin a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessaryconsequential steps thereafter.

D

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H