KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) To pick the threads, unravel and answer the controversy, it will be apposite here to reproduce two orders passed by this Court on 6.4.2017 and 13.4.2017.
(2.) The order dated 6.4.2017, contain brief facts, contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, prayer made in the present petition and reasons for issuing notice to the respondents. The order dated 6.4.2017, reads as under:- "The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a direction be issued to the respondents to re-examine Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II, of Junior Accountant Examination, 2013, held on 4.10.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that regarding examination of Jr. Accountant this Court had already dealt with part of the controversy in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. Secretary, RPSC and Anr., SBCWP No. 3985/2017, decided on 27.3.2017. Briefly stated, the respondent RPSC had issued an advertisement on 18.9.2013, inviting applications for recruitment of Jr. Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement and he was issued admission card to appear in the competitive examination. The written competitive examination was held on 4.10.2016. The candidates who appeared in the examination had to solve Paper-I and Paper-II. In the papers to be undertaken by the candidates, Knowledge about Book Keeping, Accounting, Business Management, Auditing, Indian Economics, Rajasthan Civil Services and General Finance and Account Rules and Accounting Rules was to be adjudged. In the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the answer taken into consideration for evaluating the candidates qua Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II. Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II, reads as under:- 56. Which term defines internal audit with clarity? (1) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the business operation conducted by the internal audit staff. (2) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the financial statements conducted by the internal audit staff. (3) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the financial statements only conducted by the external agency. (4) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of operation of business conducted by external audit staff only. 95. What is the percentage of direct and indirect taxes in the gross tax revenue of India in 2014-15? (1) 40:60 (2) 54:46 (3) 46:54 (4) 60:40 This Court shall first deal with Question No. 56. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the examination was held on 4.10.2016, answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had filed objections qua Q.No.56 and result was declared on 7.11.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since RPSC had received various objections, it constituted an expert panel and expert panel examined the objections and considering the opinion of the expert panel, the RPSC revised the answer key on 18.11.2016 and the revised result was declared on 24.2.2017. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the report of expert as Annexure-12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far Q.No.56 is concerned, RPSC had given option No.1 as correct answer, experts after examining gave opinion to the RPSC that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct answers. It is contended that the RPSC has ignored the opinion of the experts and instead of deleting the question, or holding that answer nos. 1 and 2 both are correct, the RPSC for evaluation has persisted that answer Option No.1 is correct answer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that having appointed expert panel, it was necessary for the RPSC to yield to the opinion of the expert and act in consonance with their opinion. It is contended that RPSC could not ignore the opinion of the experts. As to why, opinion of the expert qua Q.No.56 of Paper-II has been ignored, issue notice to the respondent RPSC. On the asking of the court, Mr. Anand Sharma, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent RPSC. A copy of the petition has been served upon him. So far challenge to the Question No.95 is concerned, the same is to be rejected at the outset. The examination was held on 4.10.2016 and answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had not filed any objection qua Q.No.95. The petitioner accepted the answer given by RPSC to Q.No.95 to be correct. After revision of result, on 24.2.2016, the petitioner stood ousted from the selection process. Now the petitioner had approached this court that this Court should direct the respondent RPSC to examine the answer to Q.No.95. This is fourth round of litigation regarding the correctness of the answers. The selection/recruitment process cannot be an unending process. For the post of Jr. Accountant thousands of candidates had appeared and after each revision one or another candidate shall be dissatisfied and the court cannot stand in the way of recruitment and obstruct outcome of the recruitment process. The very fact that the examination was held on 4.10.2016, thereafter various round of litigation regarding correctness of answer have concluded, this Court will not entertain objections to Question No.95 of the petitioner, as at first opportunity, when chance was given to file objections, the petitioner had not filed the objections to the answer to Q.No.95. Furthermore, expert panel has already determined the objections. To the limited extent as to why report of expert qua Q.No.56 has not been granted sanctity, already this Court had issued the notice in the present case. List for arguments on 12.4.2017. Copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. Anand Sharma, counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC, for onward transmission and necessary compliance."
(3.) As is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 6.4.2017, the challenge was restricted to Question No.56, which has been reproduced in the order dated 6.4.2017.;