Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be directed to re-evaluate the answer of Question No.10 and 108 and award bonus marks to the petitioner. Further, prayer has been made that the respondent be directed to revise the merit list and rank of the petitioner by preparing a fresh merit list by correcting the answer to Question No.10 and 108.
(2.) Briefly stated, the respondents on 4.9.2013 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II). The petitioner appeared in Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) Hindi Examination, 2013. The petitioner had applied under the General category. The examination was conducted by Zila Parishad Barmer. The competitive examination contained two questions bearing Nos. 10 and 108. The question No.10 and 108 are reproduced below:- Q.No.10. 'Dakan Pratha' was declared illegal by (A) Maharaja Jawan Singh (B) Maharaj Ganga Singh (C) Sawai Mansingh (D) Rao Suraj Singh
(3.) Pertaining to similar selection, qua different Zila Parishad, which included Jhalawar, Alwar, Baran and Barmer, numerous writ petitions were filed. A bunch of fourty-eight writ petitions lead case being, Niranjan Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No.4405/2015, was decided by a co-ordinate Bench on 3.8.2016. While disposing of aforesaid fourty-eight writ petitions, co-ordinate Bench had given various directions. The relevant portion of the order dated 3.8.2016, passed by co-ordinate Bench reads as under:- "At that stage, learned Additional Advocate General made a proposal aforesaid in the interest of justice and to redress the grievance of the petitioners, which has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to express opinion on each disputed question. It is in the light of the suggestion made by learned Additional Advocate General to save the selections and appointments already made and to see that result as well as appointments are not unsettled. It would otherwise save the department and agony of the petitioners and consequences thereupon. In view of the aforesaid and as agreed by the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Each petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad concerned indicating the objection about correctness of the answer raised in the present writ petitions. It is by giving details of the petitioner/s as well as number of the writ petition/s. The petitioners would further supply the material to show that answer given by them or their view is correct so that it can be examined appropriately by the experts. The representation would be submitted within a period of 21 days from today. (ii) On receipt of representations by the respective Zila Parishads, it would be sent to the State Government. The State Government would constitute a committee of experts by inducting the person of appropriate level who must be expert of the subject. It may be at the level of Professor or Associate Professor. (iii) After receiving opinion of the experts, the result of the petitioners would be examined. If they become entitled to get bonus marks or marks for correct answer/s given by them then their result would be revised provided they fall in the merit after getting marks and, accordingly, their merit would be assessed by the Zila Parishad after getting expert opinion or, in the alternative, the State Government may call for result from the Zila Parishad for carrying out the directions given above. (iv) The directions given above would be applicable only to the petitioners herein and only for those disputed answers which have been raised in the present writ petitions. The petitioners would not be entitled to raise objections about any other question or answer which has not been raised in the present writ petitions. The aforesaid directions have been given by accepting arguments of learned Additional Advocate General. After publication of second answer key, if somebody has not approached this court till date, then directions given above would not apply to him/her. The issue cannot be kept open to unsettle the appointments and the selections made by different Zila Parishads at the instance of those who are sleeping over the matter. (v) The State Government is further directed to take appropriate opinion of learned Additional Advocate General Shri S.K. Gupta after getting opinion of the experts and sending it to the Zila Parishad for revising the marks of the petitioners. The direction aforesaid has been given to avoid further litigation in the matter and to have proper and unbiased scrutiny of the issues. After the exercise, as directed by this court, the compliance report would be produced before the court by respective Zila Parishads/State Government. It is to see as to whether proper compliance of the order has been made or not. It is only to avoid further litigation on the issue so that selections in question are not unsettled further. The report would be submitted at the earliest and, on its receipt, it would be placed before this court. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.";