- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner.
(2.) In the present intra-court appeal, the appellant/petitioner has questioned the validity, legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ applications, lead case being SBCWP No.16800/2012 (Jitendra Kumar Jhalani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.).
(3.) Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for the appreciation of the challenge are: That the appellant/ petitioner successfully participated in the selection process for consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Accountant/Junior Accountant conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short). The result of the examination was declared on 9th May, 2012, wherein the appellant/petitioner stood at serial No.79 of the merit list. However, on a revision of the result, in view of the deletion of 23 wrong questions by the Commission, 21 marks of the appellant/petitioner were decreased and in consequence he was declared unsuccessful on 27th September, 2012. The appellant/petitioner aggrieved of the action of the Commission aforesaid, preferred writ application before the learned Single Judge, assailing the decision of the Expert Committee, in not correctly assessing the answers of three questions. Since the Commission agreed for re-assessment of two questions, through an Expert Committee, therefore, the dispute remained only with reference to Question No.43 (Paper-II Series-'D'). The respondent-Commission also agreed for re-assessment of Question No.13 and 57 of Paper-I, Series-'A', and was further prepared to delete two questions, which were found incorrect. The objection raised with reference to some of the questions being out of syllabus, was repelled by the learned Single Judge since no such objection was raised by the appellant immediately after writing the examination. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the action of respondent/Commission in distributing the marks proportionately to the remaining questions/answers, on account of deletion of wrong questions resulted into failure of the candidates in not securing the required 35% in individual paper, though having secured 40% in aggregate. If the candidates were assessed purely on the questions/answers after deletion of the wrong questions, they might have had a fair chance of selection. Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Manjusree Versus. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, 2008 3 SCC 512; was relied upon in support of the contention.;