Pawan Kumar And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.04.2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners has been dismissed.

In the writ petition challenge was made by the appellantspetitioners to the correctness of the model answers to question no.73 of English-II (G Series), question nos.120 and 122 of GK (G series), question no.128 of GK (F series) and question no.15 of Child Development and Pedagogy in REET 2017 Level-II Examination held on 11.02.2018. The learned Single Judge has noted that when a pointed query was made to the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners as to when the objections to model answer key in respect of the above referred questions or otherwise were made to the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, which conducted the said examination, he was not in a position to state as to when objections to the correct answers to questions in issue were submitted before the Board of Secondary Education. The learned Single Judge in fact referred to averments made by the appellants-petitioners in paras 5 and 8 and also noted that there was no documentary proof substantiating the allegations.

Learned counsel for appellants-petitioners has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Richal and Others Vs. Rajsthan Public Service Commission and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 81, to argue that objections to key answers are to be examined by experts and thereafter corrective measures, if required, to be taken by examining body. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, in which it was held that 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.

We have also in the course of arguments gone through the averments made in paras 5 and 8 of the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners. In fact, in para 8 of the writ petition it is stated by the appellants-petitioners that when the first answer key was published on 16.03.2018, all the petitioners after tallying their answers from their OMR sheets, came to know that all of them have secured more than 60% marks and therefore, they did not chose to file any objection. Further when the second answer key was published on 31.07.2018, they came to know that the answers of certain questions given in the key, were wrong/incorrect. The answers given by them as it is evident from the OMR sheets, are correct.

A pointed query was made by the learned Single Judge as also by us as to the averments in the writ petition and also the notice for demand of justice which the appellants-petitioners served, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners was not in a position to show either from the pleading or from the notice for demand of justice (Annexure-9) whether it was pointedly asserted that the answers to these questions in the first model answer key were correctly indicated and in the second model anwser key it was not correctly indicated. Besides, the learned Single Judge has also noted that the appellants-petitioners could not prove that the notice aforesaid was ever served on the respondents. Even then, the learned Single Judge in the concluding part of the judgment has observed as under:-

"It however goes without saying that in the event the answers to questions in the model answer key under challenge in this petition are put to challenge by another candidate before this Court after having filed the requisite objections within the notified time frame, the decision of the Court thereon shall accrue to the petitioners herein if similarly placed as the petitioner/s in such other petition."

The afore-extracted part of the order of the learned Single Judge would take care of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University, supra, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge. If eventually any of the aforesaid questions under the model answer key is challenged in this petition and is also subject to challenge by any other candidate is challenged, the benefit of the same would also accrue to the appellants-petitioners.

We therefore do not see any good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations.