- (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment & order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th January, 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that after the earlier round of litigation wherein a group of matters, learned Single Judge vide order dated 16th November, 2016, has directed the authority to re-examine the question No. 74 & 76, which was reproduced by the learned Single Judge on page 122 of the paper book which reads as under:- "Five questions bearing Nos. 74, 76, 99, 58 and 53 merit attention of this court. Question No. 74 reads as under:- 74. 'Naya Savera' is (I) a programme to de-addict all the Doda Post users. (ii) a programme to de-addict all the tobacco users. (iii) a programme of de-addict5 all the wine users (iv) All of these".. Question No. 74 is regarding "Naya Savera Scheme" launched by the Department, Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur in the year 2014-2015.
(2.) After that the committee re-visited question No. 74 & 76 which is referred to the expert committee. The expert committee confirmed the opinion and it has been contended that if it is looked into, the answer is probably long and contrary to answer with ideal model given which has been submitted by the authority. However, learned Single Judge at page 3, observed as under:- "Counsel for petitioner submits that nothing has been disclosed by the Commission as to what efforts have been put in by the experts in reexamining/re-visit two questions of which reference has been made by the coordinate Bench in the order and to be more specific question Nos.74 & 76 and main written examination is scheduled to be held on 28.01.2017 and no option is left with the petitioner except to approach this court. It is informed to this court that in compliance of judgment of this court, of which reference has been made, the Expert Committee re-visited both the question Nos.74 & 76 and find no change in result of both the two questions. Mr.Vigyan Shah, counsel for the petitioner wants to apprise this court that the prima facie look of both the two questions if considered by this court, on a bare perusal which is being supported by approved books on record and which was prima facie looked into by the coordinate Bench of this court but left it open for further re-visit by the Expert Committee and deserves indulgence of this court more so when the main written examination is going to held on 28th of this month and in these facts & circumstances, there is no other option left with the petitioner but to approach this court. The submission made cannot be countenanced by this court more so when the matter had been considered at length and this court prima facie arrived to the conclusion that two question for which there was a dispute i.e. No.74 & 76, left for the expert committee to re-visit the matter and the opinion which will be expressed by the expert committee shall be taken note of by the Commission in further processing the matter and after the matter is now being re-visited by the subject Experts and processed by the Commission, pursuant to the expert committee's report in reference to the question Nos.74 & 76, there is no end to the litigation and the candidates who have not been finally selected to participate in the main examination, they will go on harping on the issue until succeeded but this court has to put a rest to the on-going litigation and since the matter in reference to the question Nos.74 & 76 have been re-visited by the subject Experts and acted upon by the Commission, this court finds no reasonable justification to reappreciate and to further re-visit the same very questions in the second round of litigation. After having heard counsel for the petitioner, this court finds no reason to interfere in the second round of litigation more so when the petitioner has succeeded in convincing the court that the question Nos.74 & 76 have to be re-visited by the experts and the opinion after being expressed by the subject Experts and the Commission has processed accordingly there appears no reason for this court to interfere at this stage.
(3.) It has been contended by the counsel for the RPSC who appeared though no caveat was filed but at the request of the Court.;