Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) ALL these petitions pertain to the recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level I and Level II) made at various Districts for various subjects, on the basis of examination conducted by the respondents pursuant to the advertisement dated 24/2/2012. Hence they were clubbed and heard together with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts in nutshell may be stated as under: - 2(i) The respondents had issued a common advertisement dated 24/2/2012 for the appointment of Teachers Grade III (Level I and II), pursuant to which the District Level Examinations were held at various Districts for various subjects. The selection on the said posts of Teacher Gr. III (Level I or Level II) (subject -wise) was based upon the merit list prepared by adding 20% marks secured in RTET Examination to the marks obtained in the written examination conducted by the respective Zila Parishads. The written examination was having weightage of 200 marks with negative marking of 1/3rd marks for every wrong answer. The respondents conducted the said written examination on 2/6/2012, and the concerned authorities of the respondents had collected all the question papers along with the OMR Sheets from the candidates, who had appeared for the said examinations, after the examination was over. The respondents declared the first result of the said examination on 27/8/2012. 2(ii) It appear that the candidates, who were not selected, approached the High Court by filing different writ petitions, seeking directions to allow them the inspection to their OMR Sheets, question papers and answer keys. The High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14726 of 2012, Kapil Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., vide order dated 24/9/2012 directed the respondents to decide the representations of such petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. reported in : 2011 (8) SCC 497. The respondents having allowed such petitioners to have inspections of their OMR sheets, question papers, and answer keys, some of the candidates again approached this Court by filing several writ petitions, challenging the merit list on the ground that the model answer keys of various subjects contained several wrong answers. This Court again vide order dated 20/12/2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20698/2012, Bhagwan Singh Saini vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. directed the said petitioners to make representations to the respondents giving out details of the questions, which were having the wrong answers, and directed the respondents to consider such representations and if need be, after constituting an independent expert committee to examine the matter. It appears that pursuant to the said order, the respondents had appointed an expert committee, and declared the revised result on 2/9/2013, declaring revised cut of marks of the respective categories for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level I and II) subject wise. 2(iii) It further appears that on account of the declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013, the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department vide order dated 30/8/2013 directed the CEOs of all Zila Parishad to terminate the services of such petitioners, who were earlier appointed on their respective posts. The said order dated 30/8/2013 was again challenged by some of the candidates on the ground that the said order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to submit their objections with regard to the disputed questions and answers in the answer key. The bunch of such petitions came to be disposed of by the Court by passing detailed order on 19/12/2013 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15788/2013, Hemendra Kumar Jangid & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. wherein the learned Single Judge, upholding the order dated 30/8/2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, gave certain directions. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19/12/2013, some of the petitioners preferred appeals before the Division Bench. In the said appeals, the Division Bench after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents directed them to maintain the status -quo with regard to the services of the concerned appellants -petitioners, who were already appointed prior to the revised result, vide the order dated 7/1/2014 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 35/2014 and others in the case of Hemdrna Kumar Jangid & Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2(iv) It further appears that some of the candidates, who were already appointed and whose services were sought to be terminated pursuant to the order dated 30/8/2013, had also filed another set of writ petitions, seeking directions to allow them the inspection of OMR sheets, question papers and answer key. The Court vide order dated 11/3/2014 passed order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2157/2014 directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in the light of the decision of Apex Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (supra). 2(v) It further appears that the respondents thereafter issued the press note on 29/7/2014 regarding uploading of question papers and OMR Sheets of all the candidates on their website making them available from 30/7/2014 till 08/08/2014. Some of the candidates, who were already appointed and sought to be terminated pursuant to the order dated 30/8/2013, again filed the writ petitions after inspecting the uploaded OMR sheets, question papers, and answer keys on the ground that their answer sheets were wrongly evaluated on the basis of erroneous model answer keys. Some of the candidates, who were not selected and appointed, also filed writ petitions on the ground that the model answer keys did not show the correct answers and the evaluation was based on erroneous answer In the instant petitions, the petitioners have challenged the evaluation of their answer sheets contained in the OMR Sheets mainly on the ground that the respondents had applied erroneous model answer keys for the said evaluations leading to an erroneous results of the examination conducted for the said posts at various Districts. There are four sets of petitions, which may be summarised as under: - 3(i) The first set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9092/2013, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15311/13 etc. pertain to the challenge to the incorrect answer keys prior to declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013, by the candidates who were not selected. 3(ii) The second set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10124/2014 pertain to the challenge to the incorrect answer keys after the declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013 by the candidates, who were not selected. 3(iii) The third set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10259/2014, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/14 etc. pertain to the challenge to incorrect answer keys after declaration of the revised result dated 2/9/2013 by the candidates, who were already appointed, however their services were sought to be terminated in view of the said revised result, and in view of the order dated 30/8/2013 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. 3(iv) The forth set of writ petitions like S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10216/2014 & Ors. pertain to the challenge to incorrect answer keys after the declaration of revised result dated 2/9/2013 declared by the respondents. The said petitions have been filed by them after the respondents uploaded the answer keys vide press note dated 29/7/2014.
(3.) THE bone of contention raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners is that the respondents had applied erroneous answer keys for evaluation of the answer sheets of the candidates leading to erroneous results of the subjectwise examinations conducted in various Districts for the posts of Teachers Grade III (Level I & II). The petitioners, in each of their respective petitions have given illustrations to substantiate their allegations as to how they were subjected to injustice because of the erroneous evaluation. Few glaring instances pointed by them are cited herein below: - ;