caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 December, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.3649–3650 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.20512-20513 of 2019)
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. …. Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. …. Respondent (s)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos.3652-3657 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29990-29995 of 2019)
Civil Appeal No.3651 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21935 of 2019)
Civil Appeal Nos.3658-3659 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10035-10036 of 2020)
Civil Appeal No.3660 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9819 of 2020)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Meena, the Appellants herein, have filed SBCWP
1 | Page
No.10992 of 2019 in the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench aggrieved by their non-selection
to the post of Senior Teacher (Grade II) in Social Science.
By an order dated 10.07.2019, the High Court stayed the
appointments to the post of Senior Teachers (Social
Science) pursuant to the Advertisement dated
13.07.2016 till further orders. The said order was
challenged by some of the candidates who were
selected. By an order dated 24.07.2019, the Division
Bench of the High Court set aside the interim order
dated 10.07.2019. While doing so, the Writ Petition filed
by Mr. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Mr. Mahesh Kumar
Meena was disposed of along with a connected Writ
Petition filed by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma and others.
The Appellants challenged the said judgment of the
Division Bench dated 24.07.2019 in the appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of
the Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20512-20513 of
2019. An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan
Public Service Commission (for short “the RPSC”) on
13.07.2016 for selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers (Grade
2 | Page
II) in Social Science, Sanskrit, Hindi, English and
Mathematics. Written examinations were conducted on
01.05.2017 and 02.07.2017 in General Knowledge and
Social Science respectively. The RPSC issued
the 1st Answer Key on 06.02.2018 and declared the
results. The names of the Petitioners were
mentioned in the list of selected candidates but they
could not be appointed due to certain defects in the
detail forms filed by the Petitioners after their selection.
On 25.04.2018, a Single Judge of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench referred 3
questions in the 1st Answer Key to be reconsidered by an
Expert Committee. Shortly thereafter, a Single Judge of
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur
Bench referred another 8 questions for reconsideration
by an Expert Committee on 05.05.2018. An
Expert Committee constituted by the RPSC revised the
Key Answers for 2 questions in Social Science and 1
question in General Knowledge. A revised Key Answer,
which shall be referred to as the 2 nd Answer Key, was
issued pursuant thereto, and the Merit List was also
3 | Page
revised on 17.09.2018. The names of the Petitioners
were not included in the revised Merit List.
3. The judgment dated 05.05.2018 of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by which 8 questions were
referred to the Expert Committee for reconsideration
was the subject matter of appeal before a Division bench
of the High Court. The grievance of the Appellants
therein was that they had challenged the correctness of
33 questions which required to be referred to an Expert
Committee. The High Court examined the correctness of
the disputed questions by itself and came to a
conclusion that the answers to 5 questions were wrong.
After being informed that the results have been
announced and the selection process was completed,
the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment
dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of
2018 directed revision of the Select List and give benefit
of the revision only to the Appellants before the Court.
The Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.10035-36 of 2020
4 | Page
is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment
dated 12.03.2019.
4. On 13.03.2019, a direction was issued by a learned
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench that the names of the ineligible
candidates should be deleted from the Select List and a
revised Select List shall be issued. The 3 rd Answer Key
was published by the RPSC on 08.04.2019 but the
benefit of the said revision was given only to the
Appellants in the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of
2018. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur
Bench on 13.03.2019 was implemented and the Select
List was revised on 21.05.2019 by excluding ineligible
candidates. The names of 124 candidates were included
in the said revised Select List which was prepared on the
basis of the 2nd Answer Key. A Waiting List was prepared
on 22.05.2019 by the RPSC, again on the basis of the 2 nd
Answer Key.
5. The grievance of the Appellants in the Writ Petition
was the preparation of the revised Select List of
5 | Page
21.05.2019 on the basis of the 2 nd Answer Key. In the
Appeal preferred against the interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge on 10.07.2019 in the Writ Petition
filed by the Appellants, the Division Bench of the High
Court considered the matter in detail and disposed of the
Writ Petition filed by the Appellants. The
interim order in favour of the Appellants in the Writ
Petition was set aside.
6. While taking note of the entire gamut of the
litigation arising out of the Notification issued on
13.07.2016 for selection to the posts of Senior Teachers,
the Division Bench was of the considered opinion that
there was confusion that was caused due to divergent
directions given by different Benches of the High Court.
The Division Bench found that the judgment of the
Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of
2018 dated 12.03.2019 was not brought to the notice of
the learned Single Judge when he issued a direction to
revise the Select List on 13.03.2019. It was held that the
Appellants were not entitled to any relief as the direction
given by the Division Bench in its judgment dated
6 | Page
12.03.2019 to revise the Select List on the basis of the
findings recorded therein was made applicable only to
the Appellants therein and not to other candidates. The
Select List that was issued on the basis of the 2 nd Answer
Key was approved by the Division Bench and the RPSC
was directed to proceed with the selection and issue
appointments on the basis of the List published on
16.04.2019. The Waiting List that was prepared on
22.05.2019 was also upheld by the Division Bench.
7. As the points that arise for consideration in all the
above Appeals are the same, it is not necessary to refer
to the facts of the other Appeals. The main point that
arises for consideration in the case is whether judgment
dated 12.03.2019 of the Division Bench of the High
Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018 can be
restricted only to the Appellants therein. The grievance
of the Appellants is that the Select List should have been
revised by applying the 3rd Answer Key which was
prepared on the basis of the judgment dated
12.03.2019.
7 | Page
8. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mr. Rakesh Karela and
Mr. Ranbir Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellants
submitted that there was no reason for the Division
Bench to have restricted the operation of its judgment
dated 12.03.2019 only to the Appellants therein. Mr.
Pandey submitted that the Appellants would have been
included in the list of 124 candidates prepared on
21.05.2019 if the 3rd Answer Key was given effect to in
respect of all candidates without the same being
restricted only to the Appellants in the said Appeal.
He submitted that the waiting list was also prepared on
the basis of the 2nd Answer Key and not the 3 rd Answer
Key. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants
suggested that there are vacancies which can be filled
up by appointment of the Appellants.
9. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted that
every selection process undertaken by the State is
subject matter of litigation and in view of the pendency
of cases in the Court for long period of time, the State is
put in a difficult situation as appointments to public
8 | Page
posts are delayed. The thrust of the submissions made
by the learned Senior Counsel is that the Select List
prepared on the basis of the 2 nd Answer Key on
07.09.2019 should be final and such of those persons
who did not approach the court at the earliest point of
time are not entitled to relief. Dr. Singhvi submitted that
the benefit of the judgment of the Division Bench dated
12.03.2019 was extended only to the 21 Appellants as
per the direction of the Division Bench. Any relief that is
granted to the Appellants at this stage would create
confusion and result in unsettling the appointments that
have already been made pursuant to the advertisement
issued in 13.07.2016. Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel
appearing for the RPSC stated that the Merit List was
prepared on the basis of the directions issued by the
High Court and no interference is warranted at this
stage. After exclusion of 124 eligible candidates, a
revised Select List was prepared on the basis of the 2 nd
Answer Key and 51 persons have already been
appointed. The remaining appointments could not be
made in view of the interim order passed by this Court
on 06.09.2019. Pursuant to instructions from the Public
9 | Page
Service Commission, a Note was filed by the learned
counsel appearing for the RPSC showing the number of
posts which are vacant. He further submitted that
the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2019
was implemented only in respect of the Appellants
before the High Court. Mr. Shariq Ahmed and Mr. Shadan
Farasat, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
Respondents argued that this Court should not interfere
with the judgement of the Division Bench as no relief can
be granted to the Appellants who are fence sitters. They
submitted that the High Court was right in upholding the
judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.03.2019 by
which the relief was restricted only to the Appellants
therein.
10. The point that arises for the consideration of this
Court is whether the revised Select List dated
21.05.2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of
the 2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contend that the
Wait List also should be prepared on the basis of the 3 rd
Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2 nd Answer Key.
The 2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC on the
10 | P a g e
basis of the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued
by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised
Select List which included only a few candidates, certain
unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before the Division
Bench which were disposed of on 12.03.2019. When the
Division Bench was informed that the selections have
been finalized on the basis of the 2 nd Answer Key, it
refused to interfere with the Select List prepared on
17.09.2018. However, the Division Bench examined the
correctness of the questions and Answer Keys pointed by
the Appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that
the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the
basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed
the RPSC to prepare revised Select List and apply it only
to the Appellants before it.
11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules
permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts
which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the question
11 | P a g e
papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the
Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the
candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.)1 Courts have
to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the
expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See-
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.)2.
Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-
evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay
Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3 held
that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in
the matters and the academic matters are best left to
academics. This Court in the said judgment further held
as follows:
“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers.
1 (2010) 6 SCC 759
2 (2010) 8 SCC 372
3 (2018) 2 SCC 357
12 | P a g e
The entire examination process does not deserve to
be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some
injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All
candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer
more but that cannot be helped since mathematical
precision is not always possible. This Court has shown
one way out of an impasse — exclude the suspect or
offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have been
discussed above, there is interference by the courts
in the result of examinations. This places the
examination authorities in an unenviable position
where they are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air
of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that
candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for
an examination, it must not be forgotten that even
the examination authorities put in equally great
efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The
enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a
later stage, but the court must consider the internal
checks and balances put in place by the examination
authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by
the candidates who have successfully participated in
13 | P a g e
the examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference where there is no
finality to the result of the examinations even after a
lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination — whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved
by the court; whether they will get admission in a
college or university or not; and whether they will get
recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not
work to anybody’s advantage and such a state of
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this
is that public interest suffers.”
12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it
was not open to the Division Bench to have examined
the correctness of the questions and the answer key to
come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert
Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance
was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. 4 In the
said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection
process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
4 (2018) 8 SCC 81
14 | P a g e
committee but did not enter into the correctness of the
questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said
judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute
in this case.
13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it
clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with
expert opinion in academic matters. In any event,
assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive
at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in
finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly
caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections
pending in courts for a long period of time. The
cascading effect of delay in appointments is the
continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and
their claims for regularization. The other consequence
resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is
the serious damage caused to administration due to lack
of sufficient personnel.
14. The submission made by the Respondents that the
Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is
inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not
15 | P a g e
necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings
in the preceding paragraphs. It is clear from the
statement filed by the RPSC that there are vacancies
existing which can be utilized for appointing the
Appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction
except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State
Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the
Wait List in accordance with the merits of the
candidates. The selection process which was stalled in
view of the interim order passed by this Court should be
completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The
Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019
committed an error in recording findings on the
correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the
experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the
judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21
appellants-therein have already been appointed and we
are not inclined to upset their appointments.
15. We uphold the Select List dated 21.05.2019 and the
Wait List dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of the
2nd Answer Key.
16 | P a g e
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are
dismissed.
……………………………..J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…………………………….J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
…………………………….J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
New Delhi,
December 07, 2020.
17 | P a g e
Comments