NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 - Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the respondent-commission" hereinafter) published advertisement dated 16.10.2015 for the recruitment of the School Lecturer for various subjects to be appointed under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, for which the online examination forms were invited from the eligible candidates. The respondent-commission conducted the competitive examination at various centers at all district headquarters of Rajasthan on 17.07.2016 for the subject of General Awareness and General Studies (Paper-I) and then for various other subjects. The respondent-commission published the answer key on 03.08.2016. Thereafter, the respondent - commission published the press-note at its website and called online objections regarding the answer key. Many candidates submitted their online objections at the website of the respondent - commission. The result of the said competitive examination was declared on 22.09.2016. Number of writ petitions were filed with the common grievance that in the competitive examination held, answers as per answer key disclosed qua papers set out by the RPSC, is against the answers given in the well accepted text books and other material on the subject. All the writ petitions were disposed by way of a common Order dated 08.11.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15028 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar and ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and ors.) and 15 other connected petitions with the following directions:- "This Court rejects the argument raised by Mr. M.F. Baig believing in the fairness of the persons at the helm of the affairs at RPSC, as this Court believes that the RPSC has nothing to hide in their cupboard. Transparency not only inspire confidence of the persons in the system but also ensure that merit is only yardstick to which RPSC is committed and RPSC shall make every effort that the teachers are spotted on the touchstone of merit alone. This Court shall follow the maxim that fairness in recruitment should not only be followed but should also appear to have been followed. Therefore, to achieve highest standards of transparency, following directions are issued:- (a) That the revised answer key along with report of experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order. (b) That after the needful is done by the RPSC, no objections shall be entertained by RPSC and the revised answer key shall be final and shall be followed by RPSC for computation of the result. (c) That only qua the answer to the question which as per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is unacceptable to the experts having authority in the subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge made to the revised answer key and if two views are possible due credence shall be given to the one view if same is in consonance with the revised answer key approved by the experts. (d) That for a period of fifteen days, after uploading of the revised answer key, the computation of the result shall be kept in abeyance to enable any aggrieved person to approach the court in case revised answer key to a question is palpably wrong and is against all the accepted principles or cannons of the subject. (e) That in pursuance of the selection made, any appointment/posting letter already issued, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen days from receipt of certified copy of this order by RPSC and the State Government."
(3.) In pursuance thereof, the final answer key was published by the respondent-Commission on 18.11.2016. Still aggrieved, the above mentioned writ petitions have been filed by the unsuccessful candidates who did not find their names in the revised select list with the following main objections:- A. There were 75 questions of 150 marks in Paper-I and 150 questions of 300 marks in Paper-II. The respondents have deleted as many as 18 questions out of 75 at the rate of 24% for the first paper i.e. General Awareness and General Studies, which has vitiated the concept of competition in direct recruitment. The competitive examinations are subject to negative markings. Those candidates who have attempted these questions which have been deleted by the respondent - commission are being certainly benefited by the deletion and those who attempted the right answers are being penalized. B. Those questions which should not have been deleted have been deleted, whereas, there are other questions which are required to be deleted but have not been deleted. C. Besides, the objections raised qua the first paper i.e. General Awareness and General Studies with respect to the Question Nos. 1, 3, 5, 11, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, 43, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 60, 65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73 and 74, similar objections have been raised qua 09 questions with respect to the subject Commerce (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 22, 25, 28, 56, 82, 106, 121, 128 and 141. For the subject Rajasthani (Paper-II), the objections have been raised qua 10 questions i.e. Question Nos. 8, 21, 57, 82, 119, 121, 133, 137, 142 and 148. The objections have also been raised qua 10 questions with respect to the subject History (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 10, 40, 41, 49, 91, 100, 101, 103, 123 and 149, 06 questions with respect to the subject Biology (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 11, 21, 41, 45, 46 and 51. Qua the subject Political Science (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised qua 10 questions i.e. Question Nos. 2, 16, 19, 33, 51, 55, 65, 109, 118 and 122. For Hindi (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised with respect to 09 questions i.e. Question Nos. 5, 51, 89, 92, 93, 105, 107, 112 and 148 and qua the subject English (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised qua 23 questions. D. In Writ Petition No. 12481/2016, one of the arguments raised is that 83.33% questions are from one particular guide book in the subject of Political Science. E. In Writ Petition No. 14728/2016, the report of the Expert Committee has been challenged on the ground that deletion of such huge number of questions as well as the fact that there are other questions which should not have been deleted but have been deleted show the ambiguity that the expert report is palpably wrong and deserves to be set aside. There are ambiguous questions and some questions are out of syllabus.;