RAS EXAM 2016 Court Order Question Answer Full Judgment

Rajasthan High Court

Shivram Singh Choudhary vs State (Personnel Department) Anr on 13 January, 2017

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
               S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 643 / 2017
Shivram Singh Choudhary S/o Mooliram Choudhary,, Aged About
31 Years, Near Saras Milk Dairy, Agra Road, Dausa (Raj.)

                                                        ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary

                                                   ----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

_____________________________________________________ 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Judgment 13/01/2017 Petition has no patience even to await decision of the Commission in compliance of the earlier round of litigation disposed of by the coordinate Bench vide order dt.16.11.2016.

The petition was filed at the behest of the petitioner as well decided by the common order. The grievance of the petitioner is the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued its advertisement dt.28.04.2016 holding recruitment to the cadre the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services and the process was held for preliminary examination which is to be followed by the main written examination and we are at the stage when the preliminary (2 of 4) [CW-643/2017] examination was held which contain multiple choice questions.

In the earlier round of litigation, the dispute was raised with regard to the question Nos.74, 76, 99, 58 & 53 and it was alleged that their answers as disclosed by the Commission are not correct and supportive material was placed on record but the coordinate Bench of this court after appreciation of material found it appropriate to appreciate question Nos.74 & 76 and taking note of the grievance of the individual petition who had participated in the preliminary examination finally observed ad infra:-

"Having given a prima-facie opinion, taking into consideration three Schemes propagated and published by the State of Rajasthan, which have been produced before this Court by Mr.Saxena, ld. A.A.G. and the stand taken by him, this Court shall not out-rightly reject the opinion of experts, but with due deference shall call upon them to re-examine their opinion in light of Schemes taken on recorda s A-1-A-2 qua Question Nos.74 and 76.

Mr.Baig, counsel for the 'RPSC; is directed to obtain Naya Savera Scheme taken on recorda s A-1 and Bhamashah Yojna Scheme taken on record as A-2 from the office of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) after filing an undertaking that he shall remain the same after perusal by the experts. The Experts after, going through the Schemes may revise the answer to the Question Nos.74 and 76. In case, the experts came to a conclusion that the result of Answer Nos.74 and 76 is to be revised, as per the Scheme Annexure A-1 and A- 2, which have been handed over to Mr.Baig, the revised answer to question Nos.74 and 76 thereafter, shall be uploaded on the web-site of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

Needful be done by the experts and RPSC within a week from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Needless to say, in case experts modify their opinion regarding answer to the question Nos.74 and 76, Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall revise the result.

Upon disposal of main petitions, the stay applications filed therewith, do not survive and the same are also disposed of.

Let a copy of this order, under the seal and signature of the Court Master, be handed over to Mr.M.F.Baig, for (3 of 4) [CW-643/2017] onward transmission and necessary compliance."

Counsel for petitioner submits that nothing has been disclosed by the Commission as to what efforts have been put in by the experts in re-examining/re-visit two questions of which reference has been made by the coordinate Bench in the order and to be more specific question Nos.74 & 76 and main written examination is scheduled to be held on 28.01.2017 and no option is left with the petitioner except to approach this court.

It is informed to this court that in compliance of judgment of this court, of which reference has been made, the Expert Committee re-visited both the question Nos.74 & 76 and find no change in result of both the two questions.

Mr.Vigyan Shah, counsel for the petitioner wants to apprise this court that the prima facie look of both the two questions if considered by this court, on a bare perusal which is being supported by approved books on record and which was prima facie looked into by the coordinate Bench of this court but left it open for further re-visit by the Expert Committee and deserves indulgence of this court more so when the main written examination is going to held on 28 th of this month and in these facts & circumstances, there is no other option left with the petitioner but to approach this court.

The submission made cannot be countenanced by this court more so when the matter had been considered at length and this court prima facie arrived to the conclusion that two question for which there was a dispute i.e. No.74 & 76, left for the expert committee to re-visit the matter and the opinion which will be (4 of 4) [CW-643/2017] expressed by the expert committee shall be taken note of by the Commission in further processing the matter and after the matter is now being re-visited by the subject Experts and processed by the Commission, pursuant to the expert committee's report in reference to the question Nos.74 & 76, there is no end to the litigation and the candidates who have not been finally selected to participate in the main examination, they will go on harping on the issue until succeeded but this court has to put a rest to the on- going litigation and since the matter in reference to the question Nos.74 & 76 have been re-visited by the subject Experts and acted upon by the Commission, this court finds no reasonable justification to re-appreciate and to further re-visit the same very questions in the second round of litigation.

After having heard counsel for the petitioner, this court finds no reason to interfere in the second round of litigation more so when the petitioner has succeeded in convincing the court that the question Nos.74 & 76 have to be re-visited by the experts and the opinion after being expressed by the subject Experts and the Commission has processed accordingly there appears no reason for this court to interfere at this stage.

Consequently, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

(AJAY RASTOGI)J.

Solanki DS/151

Download the Judgment Just Click the Link