- (1.) This Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6588/2012 (Hanuman Ram Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants-petitioners in which the following reliefs have been claimed:- "(I) The respondent RPSC, Ajmer may kindly be directed not to prepare a merit list on the basis of the examination conducted on 15.5.2012 for the post of Head Master, Secondary Eduction. (II) That the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct a reexamination by setting out correct question papers so as to enable the competing candidates to answer the same; (III) if at all the stay sought for is not granted and the result is declared then the same may kindly be quashed and set aside; consequently, the respondents may kindly be directed to conduct a fresh examination by putting right question in the papers; (IV) That the petitioners may also kindly be granted relief in consonance with the facts stated and the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition. (V) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may also kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 22.10.2013 while observing as under:- "In identical matter, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12780/2012, on 04.12.2012, the result declared by the respondents as per the recommendations of the expert committee was challenged but the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2012. The aforesaid order passed by this Court for the same selection process for the post of Head Master (Secondary Education) was further challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1032/2012. The Division Bench after taking into consideration entire facts dismissed the above special appeal vide judgment dated 04.01.2013 and gave following verdict, which reads as under : "To reiterate, the appellants' endeavour to to prove the answers adopted by the Commission or its action of deletion of a question to be unassailably wrong are, in the contextual facts, inadequate to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, in view of the unambiguouas legal proposition laid down by Apex Court in Kanpur University. Admittedly, the appellants had not been able to secure the cut-off marks in their respective categories to be selected for the post. There is no wrangle at the bar that the opportunity granted to the candidates to point out the mistakes in the questions and the ke-answers had been availed by them. It is also a matter of record that while granting this relief, this Court by its order dated 9.10.2012 passed in Hanuman Ram Choudhary had made it clear that no further opportunity for raising any objection to the questions and the key answers would be granted. Neither any allegation of bias or mala fide nor that of any extraneous consideration has been made, qua the Commission or the expert committee. As alluded hereinabove, the instances cited by the appellants do not clinch the issue in their favour and in our view, are also unconvincing to set at naught a participatory process of the kind involved, more particularly, after the final results thereof have been declared. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. No costs." In view of the above adjudication made by the Division Bench of this Court, it is obvious that the Division Bench has considered the order passed in this case and held that no further opportunity for raising any objection to the questions and the answer-key can be granted. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the revised result issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on the basis of report of the expert committee constituted prior to filing this writ petition, in which, names of the petitioners does not find place in the select list except one Bhagirath Ram, does not require any interference. Therefore, all the above writ petitions are hereby dismissed."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on relying upon the judgment passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1032/2012 - Praveen Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 04.01.2013 as the dispute therein with regard to three questions which are not subject matter of this litigation. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even after the judgment of the Division Bench in Praveen Singh's case , out of three questions disputed therein, one question was later on corrected by the RPSC, which was question No.67 of the second series paper and this fact itself sufficient to demonstrate that even after the judgment of the Division Bench, the RPSC corrected its position, thus, the judgment aforesaid cannot be taken as a bar to grant their reliefs to the appellantspetitioners as claimed in the writ petition.;