IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL …

1 1 reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL appellate JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4695 4699 OF 2018(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14306 14310/2017) RICHAL & ORS. APPELLANT(S)VERSUSRAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .. RESPONDENT(S)& ORS. ETC. CIVIL Appeal Nos. 4722 4725 of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 19151 19154/2017) CIVIL Appeal No. 4702 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ); CIVIL Appeal Nos. 4700 4701 of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 14356 14357/2017); CIVIL Appeal Nos. 4711 4712 of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 14593 14594/2017); CIVIL Appeal Nos. 4707 4710 of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 14581 14584/2017); CIVIL Appeal No. 4703 4706 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No. 14522 14525/2017); CIVIL Appeal No. 4726 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ); CIVIL Appeal Nos.

2 4713 4720 of 2018 (arising out ofSLP(C) Nos. 14947 14954/2017) CIVIL Appeal No. 4721 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ) CIVIL Appeal No. 4727 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ) CIVIL Appeal No. 4730 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ) CIVIL Appeal No. 4728 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) )2 CIVIL Appeal No. 4729 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ) CIVIL Appeal No. 4731 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) ) of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) (Diary No(s). 9579)2018 J U D G M E N TASHOK BHUSHAN, Condoned. Leave batch of appeals questions the judgmentdelivered by Special Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan HighCourt. The Special appellate judgment of Rajasthan HighCourt dated delivered at Jodhpur and Judgmentdated delivered at Jaipur Bench, affirming thejudgments of learned Single Judge dismissing the writpetitions filed by the appellants are under appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam 2015 conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission(hereinafter referred to as Commission ), in which they3could not be declared successful.)

3 Brief facts givingrise to these appeals are: (i)The Rajasthan Public Service Commissionvide its advertisement dated advertised13,000 posts of School Lecturers for various subjectsunder Secondary Education Department, Government ofRajasthan. The examination consisted of two papers Paper I General Awareness and General Studies, andPaper II of respective subjects. The examination wasconducted on On , answer keyswere published inviting objections regarding theanswer key. Many candidates submitted objectionswith regard to different subjects, with regard toPaper I as well as Paper II. On , theCommission declared the result, against which severalwrit petitions were filed questioning various answersas per final answer key. The learned Single Judgevide its judgment and order dated in WritPetition No.

4 15028/2016 Arvind Kumar & Ors. & Ors. disposed of the writ petition withvarious directions. One of the directions was to4upload the revised answer key along with report ofExperts on the website within one week. In pursuanceof directions of learned Single Judge , final answer key was published and 18 questions in Paper I were round of litigations was started by filingvarious Writ Petitions by the candidates raisingvarious objections to the answer key. The learnedSingle Judge vide its judgment dated atJodhpur dismissed the bunch of writ petitions afterconsidering the objections raised by several writpetitioners. Learned Single Judge accepted theExpert Committee's report on various answers. (ii) Against the judgment dated , writappeals were filed by various candidates at Division Bench vide its judgment dated the writ appeals confirming the judgment oflearned Single Judge.

5 While dismissing the writappeals, various directions were issued by theDivision Bench to the Commission with regard topreparation and publication of answer key and action5to be taken against those who are entrusted with thepreparation of key answers. At Jaipur also, writpetitions were dismissed, against which writ appealswere filed and vide judgment dated ,following the judgment dated delivered atJodhpur, the Division Bench also dismissed thedifferent writ appeals. (iii) Following judgment dated , theDivision Bench both at Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissedseveral other writ appeals. Before us, the appealsfiled against the judgment dated andjudgment dated and various other judgmentsfollowing earlier judgments have been filed. Thejudgment dated delivered at Jodhpur Benchis the main judgment which has been followed by theHigh COURT in several judgments for deciding thisbatch of appeals.

6 It shall be sufficient to refer toand consider the Division Bench judgment giving rise to the CIVIL Appeal arisingout of SLP (C) Nos. 14306 14310 of 2017 Richal &ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service6 Commission & ors. etc. etc. for deciding this batchof this batch of appeals, various applications forimpleadment and intervention have been filed. We allowall the impleadment and intervention applications. ThisCourt after hearing the matter on passed thefollowing order: The Rajasthan Public Service Commission(RPSC) had issued an advertisement for fillingup of more than 13,000 posts of schoollecturers in the State of Rajasthan. Thewritten test was conducted pursuant key to the answers was also of the candidates questioned that theaforesaid key does not give correct answers tosome of the questions.

7 It was mentioned thatfew questions were not even correctly that basis, a writ petition was filed inthe High COURT . Learned Single Judge aftergoing into the said grievances of thosecandidates gave a direction 4 for constitutingthe Expert Committee to examine as to whetherthe key to the answers is correct. The ExpertCommittee gave its report recommendingdeletion of 18 questions which according tothe Expert Committee were not correctly framedand, therefore, needed to be deleted. It alsocorrected the answers to some other led to second round of litigation asthe petitioners herein (who were the writpetitioners in the High COURT ) submitted thateven the aforesaid report of the ExpertCommittee was not correct. It was submitted7that 13 questions were wrongly deleted. Insupport of this, the petitioners refer to thetext books of the NCRT as per which thosequestions were rightly framed and there was noquestion to delete them.

8 It was also submittedthat five questions were still wrongly framed,which needed to be deleted or correct answersas suggested by the Expert Committee becorrected. The High COURT has dismissed thiswrit petition. It has inter alia observed thatthe matter be given quietus inasmuch as itwould be in the public interest not to delaythe appointment of 13,000 teachers in theState of Rajasthan. We are informed that after declaration ofthe result, successful candidates have alreadybeen given appointment. It is pointed out bythe learned counsel for the petitioners thatmany posts are still lying vacant. Theyfurther submit that they have no objection ifthe candidates who have already beenappointed, their appointment is not disturbedand at the same time the grievances as pointedout by the petitioners be looked into by theExpert Committee again and if it findsjustification in the claim of the 5petitioners, fully or partially, only cases ofother candidates who have not been appointedbe re examined on the basis of the report thatwould be given by the Expert Committee'srecommendations on these aspects.

9 The learnedcounsel for RPSC wants some time to takeinstructions in this the matters on pursuance of our directions dated , anExpert Committee was appointed to re examine thegrievances of writ petitioners/appellants. An affidavit8dated sworned by Ramdev Siroya has been filedby the Commission. It is stated in the affidavit that onthe basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers inall the nine subjects for which these Experts wereappointed has been re examined and the answers wererevised. It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs 5 and6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect: " the basis of reports of Experts,overall 22 answers in all the ninesubjects for which these experts wereappointed to re examine claims ofpetitioners, were reported to be the subjects of General Knowledge(Paper I) answers to five questions wererequired to be revised; in Paper II(subject) in commerce answers of threequestions were required to be revised;three questions in subject Geography, TwoQuestions in subject Hindi (Teachingmethod); in subject History one question;in subject Political Science fourquestion; and in subject Rajasthani threequestions were reported to be revised.

10 Achart showing question numbers subject,answer in final key and new Expert Reportis being filed herewith and marked asANNEXURE A 1 (Pages 5) True and correctcopies of reports of Experts in ninesubjects is being filed herewith andmarked as ANNEXURE A 2 (Pages 6 46). Itis stated that identity of Experts is notbeing disclosed. That on the basis ofreports of the experts the result ofcandidates who have not been appointed9was revised by the Rajasthan PublicService Commission. the affidavit, it has also been stated that out oftotal number of posts in all the subjects, 729 candidateswho were offered appointment did not join. Further, 316candidates who were although selected but theircandidature were rejected. Thus in all 1045 postsremained vacant.