Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for the following reliefs :- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction : (i) the impugned answer key (Ann.8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to rightly evaluate the answers of questions no. 90 and 123 while considering the books (Ann.5 and 6). (iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to constitute expert committee for re-evaluating the questions no. 90 and 123. (iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the answer of the question no. 90 and 123 given by the petitioner and award him 4 marks. (v) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner during document verification and provide him appointment on the post of Technical Helper. (vi) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the present writ petition is covered by a precedent law of this Court in the matter of Bhagirath Jujhadia vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7368/2015) decided on 19.05.2017, the relevant portion of this judgment, reads as under :- "All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved therein is identical. The petitioners herein are seeking a direction to the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to revaluate the disputed questions and thereafter, to appoint them on the post of Technical Helper in the respective power sector companies. The facts in short are that the respondents published the advertisement in the month of October, 2013 inviting the applications for the post of Technical Helper in Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'JdVVNL' hereinafter), Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'JVVNL' hereinafter), Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short 'AVVNL' hereinafter) and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short 'RRVPNL' hereinafter). Being eligible, the petitioners applied against the said posts in different power sector companies. The petitioners appeared for the written examination on 02.02.2014. As per the conditions of the advertisement, a common competitive examination based on a common question paper was to be conducted for selection on the advertised post. The petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 7368/2015, 6882/2015 and 7828/2015 applied for the post of Technical Helper advertised for JdVVNL, whereas, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6864/2015 applied for the same post advertised for RRVPNL and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6884/2015 applied for the same post advertised for AVVNL. On finding themselves unsuccessful, the petitioners compared the answer-keys of the JdVVNL, JVVNL, AVVNL and RRVPNL, with which they were astonished to find that the answer-keys of JdVVNL, JVVNL and AVVNL were not same vis-a-vis the answerkey of RRVPNL. Certain discrepancies came to be noticed. Some of the answers which were displaying as correct in the answer-key published by one company was nullified or declared incorrect by the other companies. Admittedly, the question paper and the answer key of JdVVNL, JVVNL and AVVNL, jointly called 'AJJVVNL'/DISCOM, was same but of RRVPNL was separate. However, the questions were same. The grievance of the petitioners is that they fall short of requisite cut off marks by a very short margin. Since some of the answers given by the petitioners were declared as incorrect in the answer-key published by JdVVNL, JVVNL & AVVNL (AJJVVNL) on the one side but were held to be either correct or nullified in the RRVPNL, the validity and legality of the disputed answer-keys is challenged on the strength of these averments. It is contended that there is apparent discrepancies in the answer-keys declared by these power companies in relation to a common paper. Hence, the Expert Committee should be directed to re-evaluate the disputed questions. In Writ Petition No. 7368/2015, the objection was raised qua the question Nos. 55, 90, 113, 115, 142 & 148. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 6882/2015, the objection was raised qua the question Nos. 55, 90, 113, 115, 123, 142 & 148. In Writ Petition No. 6884/2015, the objection was raised qua the question Nos. 55, 90, 113, 115, 123 & 142. In Writ Petition No. 7828/2015, the objection was raised qua the question Nos. 55, 90, 113, 115, 123, 142 & 148. However, before this court, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, restricted their plea and arguments with respect to the Question Nos. 59, 61, 113 & 115 only. In Writ Petition No. 6864/2015, which pertains to RRVPNL, the objection was raised qua the question Nos. 55, 59, 61, 113, 123, 142 & 146. Separate reply has been filed in each of the writ petitions. Along with reply, the respondents have placed on record separate table qua each of the disputed questions raised, their answers as dealt by the companies and the answer given by the respective petitioners. A perusal of the above writ petitions shows that no objection has been raised qua Question No. 59 and 61 in the petitions. Thus, this Court shall proceed to deal with only Question Nos. 113 and 115. The stand of the petitioners qua these two questions as well as the answer-key declared by the RRVPNL and JdVVNL and the respective reports of the Expert Committee with respect to the said questions is as under :- In Writ Petition No. 7368/2015 - Bhagirath Jujhadia JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(RAJ)2_2018_1.html In Writ Petition No. 6882/2015 Nirmal Kumar JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(RAJ)2_2018_2.html In Writ Petition No. 6884/2015 Ramniwas JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(RAJ)2_2018_3.html In Writ Petition No. 7828/2015 Ram Ratan JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(RAJ)2_2018_4.html It is evident from the above table as well as the report of the Expert Committee that the Question No. 113 was nullified for JdVVNL but the expert committee did not touch the answer of this question with respect to the RRVPNL as there was no objection by the candidates, who had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for RRVPNL. Similarly, with respect to Question No. 115, the expert committee changed the original answer from 'D' to 'E' for JdVVNL, however, did not touch it with respect to the RRVPNL as there was no objection. The argument raised is that the answer to their question Nos. 113 and 115 should be the one accepted for the RRVPNL and parity should be maintained. This plea, even if accepted, will not help the petitioners for question No. 113 as their answer is, in any case, not the same as of RRVPNL. However, the answer of Question No. 115 is definitely the same as RRVPNL but then the answer given by the Expert Committee has to be accepted as final. In fact, the answer of the Expert Committee qua both i.e. Question Nos. 113 and 115 should be applied to RRVPNL too. Now the issue remains with respect to the Question Nos. 59 and 61. The objection was raised before the Expert Committee qua both these questions. The Question No. 59 was nullified by the Expert Committee, whereas, the answer to Question No. 61 was maintained as 'C'. Accordingly, the said correction was carried out in the revised answer key of AJJVVNL. It may, however, be clarified that no objection has been raised qua these two questions in the petitions pertaining to the RRVPNL. Accordingly, the necessary correction was not carried out in the RRVPNL. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was only one expert committee qua the five companies and the same committee has given different answers for the different companies. A perusal of the Order dated 23.01.2015 placed on record as Annexure-R/2 along with the reply also shows that there was one committee. The Expert Committee with respect to the AVVNL, JdVVNL & JVVNL (AJJVVNL) and RRVPNL was the same. All the above mentioned writ petitions also pertain only to JdVVNL, AVVNL, JVVNL and RRVPNL for which the expert committee was same. It may be clarified that the Expert Committee of RRVUNL (Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited) was different. For the purpose of present petitions, this Court is not concerned with the Expert Committee of RRVUNL. The discrepancy has arisen because the said Expert Committee qua AJJVVNL and RRVPNL has dealt with only those questions in which the objections were raised and accordingly, the answers also came to be changed as per their opinion qua such questions only. The Committee did not make any effort to change the answer to the same questions qua RRVPNL as no objection was raised in the same and therefore, they left the answers to these questions untouched qua the RRVPNL and vice versa. There is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that different answers to a question cannot be read for two different companies, although, there is no dispute that the final answer to be accepted has to be of the Expert Committee. However, the Expert Committee faultered in not considering the answer to the same questions for both set of companies even though the questions were same. In Writ Petition No. 6864/2015 of RRVPNL, the dispute has been raised qua Question Nos. 55, 59, 61, 113, 123, 142 & 146 but out of these questions, the objection raised before the Expert Committee by the candidates who applied for RRVPNL was only qua Question Nos. 55 and 123. Hence, the Expert Committee looked into them and nullified both the questions qua RRVPNL. Since no objection was raised qua Question Nos. 59, 113, 123, 142 & 146 by the candidates who had applied in RRVPNL, the Expert Committee did not go into the said questions qua RRVPNL. The objection has been raised in the present writ petition only after looking into the answer-key given by the Expert Committee qua objections raised by the candidates of JdVVNL. It is therefore evident that the discrepancy has once again come about only because the Expert Committee did not examine the said questions qua RRVPNL as there was no objection to them by the candidates and therefore, did not change the same. In short, the Expert Committee after examining the disputed questions changed the answers of the questions of respective companies only in the company where the objection was raised, although, when examined minutely, the answers given by the petitioner in some of the questions do not match the answers of the expert committee with respect to these two questions. This fact is evident from the following table :- following table :- JUDGEMENT_294_LAWS(RAJ)2_2018_5.html From the entire facts narrated above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as examining the record of the petitions, the main grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions is that the Expert Committee while changing the answerkey qua AJJVVNL did not change the answer to the same questions qua RRVPNL and vice-versa. There is no doubt that the Expert Committee should have carried out the change qua both the set of companies once it had gone into the respective questions whether raised by AJJVVNL or RRVPNL. However, the prayer to apply the answer-key of the Expert Committee cannot be restricted only to the questions in which the petitioners are adversely affected. The answer-key has to be accepted either in toto or rejected in toto specially when there is no objection that the fresh answer-key of the Expert Committee qua other questions was incorrect in any manner. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners in the present petitions may even get less marks than before, if the revised answer-key is applied, but then, it is the only correct procedure to follow. The petitioners cannot pick and choose the questions in which they stand to benefit by applying the revised answer key issued by the Expert Committee. In view of the above, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present writ petitions only to the following extent :- a. The answer-sheets of all the candidates shall be gone into afresh after taking into consideration the answer-key already prepared by the Expert Committee with respect to the disputed questions raised both in AJJVVNL as well as RRVPNL and the revised answer key shall be applied to both set of companies. Thereafter, a fresh merit list will be prepared. b. In case, the petitioners are found in merit after applying the said answer-key of the Expert Committee with respect to those disputed questions, the petitioners shall be duly granted appointment w.e.f. the date persons with less marks then them were appointed, with notional benefits only. The needful shall be done within one month of the receipt of copy of this order. C. The above relief will be restricted only to the petitioners as more than two years have passed since the finalization of the result. The petitioners alone have approached this Court well in time. D. No selected candidate has been made a party. Hence, the above directions shall have no bearing on the candidates already selected and so appointed. They shall not be disturbed. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms."
(3.) Accordingly, the present writ petition is also allowed on the same terms.;