PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Recruitment in pursuance of advertisement dated 24.06.2013 of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Competitive, 2013 Examination (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to check the unchecked/unevaluated answer and answers of various question of all four question papers wherein less/unjust/unfair marks has been awarded and again award the petitioner in Question paper-I Difference of - 4.5, Question Paper II Difference of 17.5, Question Paper III Difference of 4.5 and in Question Paper IV Difference of 5 marks respectively whereby total 31.5 marks be increased for the petitioner and petitioner be placed accordingly in the merit. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the assessment sheet of personality and viva voce test of the petitioner and any error/human error found there be duly rectified and petitioner be placed accordingly in the merit. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the petitioner as successful for appointment for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Competitive 2013 Examination. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner for further process of appointment for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service Competitive 2013 Examination. F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to afford the appointment to the petitioner on the post in accordance with preference and merit of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. G. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon "?ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. H. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) The matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Jeevan Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9389/2017 decided on 07.09.2018), which reads as under: "1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the final selection and appointment of the petitioner for his respective cadre post and category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pass the order to constitute the Expert Committee to provide the report of actual answers while considering the questions/objections submitted by the petitioner as per the authentic books in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS/RTS. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to redetermine the complete merit/result of the petitioner for final selection and appointment process while making the necessary corrections in the answer sheets of his Main Examination for the questions quoted aforesaid for the post of RAS/RTS in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to award the actual marks to the petitioner for his correct answer as per proof of the authentic books of the question quoted above for the post of RAS/RTS in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to call the petitioner in the final selection process as per his actual marks in all the Papers of Mains Examination and he may kindly be permitted in the further selection process for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013. F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the appointment to the petitioner against his respective cadre post and category, if he stand in merit in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 with all consequential benefits. G. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon "?ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. H. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement dated 24.06.2013 under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of RAS as well as various Subordinate Services, as mentioned in the advertisement. 3. The petitioner appeared in the selection process and passed the RAS Pre and Mains Examination, 2013, which was scheduled from 09.04.2016 to 12.04.2016, and thereafter, he was called for interview on 12.08.2016. 4. The respondent-RPSC issued the final result dated 06.12.2016, mentioning therein the roll number of the candidates in order of merit for final selection in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013. In the final result, the roll number of the petitioner was also mentioned and he was declared successful. 5. After declaration of the final result by the respondent-RPSC, the list of the successful candidates was recommended by the RPSC to the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for their further selection process and appointment. However, the petitioner received the information that his candidature has been considered for further selection process and appointment process. 6. In pursuance of the RTI application, which was submitted by the petitioner, the respondent-RPSC provided the answer-sheets to the petitioner online for all his four papers, and while the same were checked by him, he was shocked to see that while his answer-sheets of the Mains Examination were checked by the examiner of the respondent-RPSC, various ambiguities were made therein, inasmuch as, some of the answers have been checked, while in respect of some of the answers, the examiner mentioned "?question Marks "?, even when the proper answers were given by the petitioner; for some of the answers given by the petitioner, "?zero "? marks were awarded, while comparatively for the same answer, the marks were awarded to the other similarly situated candidates. The details of the questions and their answers, wherein ambiguities were made are as follows: "Unchecked questions (Even when the same were attended by the petitioner): JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(RAJ)9_2018_1.html 7. The aforesaid questions were attempted by the petitioner, but the examiner has wrongly mentioned the result for the said questions as "?NR "?. 8. The answer given by the petitioner, in respect whereof the examiner mentioned "?Question Mark "? reads as under:- JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(RAJ)9_2018_2.html 8.1 The same answer has been given by the petitioner in Paper-II, Unit 2nd, Part C, Question No.20, and it was checked, and the marks were awarded; but here for the above mentioned question, appropriate marks have been given, and in regard thereto, "?question mark "? was mentioned by the examiner, without any appropriate rhyme or reason. 8.2 For the same answer to the questions, "?zero "? marks were awarded to the petitioner; but to other candidates, appropriate marks have been given, details whereof are as follows:- JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(RAJ)9_2018_3.html 8.2 Therefore, for the same answer, the petitioner was awarded "?zero "? marks, while other similarly situated candidates have been awarded appropriate marks for the same answer, which shows the discriminatory action on the part of the respondent-RPSC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the improper assessment of the answers to the questions had deprived the petitioner from his right to be selected. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the RPSC is a Constitutional Body, however, it has made mockery of the entire selection process by acting in such a casual and unlawful manner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the cut-throat competition amongst the candidates made a thin line between the success and failure, and thus, the carelessness and callousness on the part of the respondents in the recruitment process was the travesty of justice. The examination in question is as important as Civil Service, where the selected candidates, who shall form a crucial chain of governance of the State of Rajasthan, have been subjected to such careless and reckless assessment. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court towards the additional affidavit filed by the RPSC, which reflects that the Full Commission, in its meeting dated 12.09.2017, has passed a resolution to the effect that a press note shall be issued and the objections shall be invited from the applicants, which shall be considered and decided by the Committee. The said resolution of the RPSC dated 12.09.2017 reads as follows: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents however, states that the aforementioned resolution was cancelled vide another resolution taken by the Full Commission in its meeting on 18.09.2017. The said resolution dated 18.09.2017 reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that it was due to an inadvertence that the mistake had happened and the Commission had already got the answer sheets of the petitioner re-evaluated by the experts and the marks were credited in the total marks of the petitioner, and after awarding two marks, the petitioner, who earlier stood at Merit No.2029, has been moved to Merit No.2017(A). 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner accordingly stands redressed, in light of the aforementioned reassessment, and thus, the relief accordingly was granted. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the relief beyond the prayers ought to be granted to the petitioner. 17. On being dissatisfied and shocked at the response of the respondent-RPSC, which had conducted the evaluation, while checking the answers in the answer-sheets of the petitioner, is a disastrous issue, which could render the very purpose of the RPSC as questionable, further information was sought from RPSC. 18. This Court sought response from the RPSC so as to take their stand regarding the overall re-evaluation of all the answer scripts, as if, during random checking, if certain copies have been found to be having unchecked answers, then it could be an extremely disturbing fact for the credibility of the RPSC and the selection so made. 19. On such observations, the RPSC filed an additional affidavit, stating therein that the Commission in all received complaints regarding either questions or part of questions being unchecked in 23 answer scripts of 19 candidates. The additional affidavit of the RPSC further stated that the same were taken up for consideration, and it was found that most of the complaints were genuine. The Commission immediately appointed subject experts for various questions, and got the unchecked portion of the candidates "? answer scripts re-evaluated and marks were awarded for all those questions, which remained unchecked by the subject experts. 20. The RPSC has further informed that after completing this process, it was found that out of 19 candidates, merit has changed in the case of 14 candidates. Three candidates, who were earlier declared qualified for the interview, have been declared qualified for the interview, and their interviews have been conducted on 29.11.2017, and the result would be forwarded to the DOP. As far as the results of the remaining two candidates are concerned, the same remain unchanged. 21. The RPSC, in its additional affidavit, further stated that the re-evaluation of the petitioner "?s answer scripts was taken up by the subjects experts and two marks were awarded to the petitioner after such re-evaluation, which has resulted in the change of merit of the petitioner from Merit No.2029 to Merit No.2017(A). 22. The RPSC, in its additional affidavit, has further stated that out of 2900 answer scripts, which were randomly checked, error was found only in 23 answer scripts, meaning thereby, the answer scripts, wherein the error was found, was even 1% of the candidates, who had obtained their answers scripts under the RTI. 23. This Court was further concerned by the affidavit filed by the respondent, as the respondent-RPSC had accepted that the answers remained unchecked and anomalies were in existence; but shockingly, the respondent-RPSC seems to be shirking away from the gross error committed by it, by suggesting that it had checked 2900 copies and error was found only in 23 answer scripts, whereas such an error in the evaluation of the answer scripts was unacceptable, and has caused great trust deficit in the RPSC, which would be very difficult to fill. 24. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, finds that it cannot close its eyes upon the disastrous evaluation being made by the respondent-RPSC in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 under the Rules of 1999 for direct recruitment to the post of RAS as well as various Subordinate Services. 25. This Court is shocked to see, on a bare perusal of the answer scripts brought on record by the petitioner, that the three questions clearly indicate that they have remained completely unchecked. This Court is appalled by the stand taken by the RPSC that it had randomly checked about 2900 answer scripts and error was found only in 23 answer scripts. The stand of the RPSC in its additional affidavit that most of the complaints, pertaining to those 23 answer scripts, were genuine, and the unchecked portions of the copies have been checked by the experts, and the results have been accordingly modified, is satisfactory to this Court. 26. We cannot go by the argument of the respondent-RPSC, that the hands of this Court are tied down in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the relief claimed by the petitioner, as while adjudicating the grievance of the petitioner, this Court has found that the respondent-RPSC has clearly faultered in checking the answer-scripts. 27. The Titanic error committed by the respondent-RPSC, by checking the number of answers in the answer sheets, cannot be ignored by this Court, and in fact, the response of the RPSC is only agonizing to the petitioner, but is also very disturbing for the aspiring candidates, whose faith in the RPSC would be shaken on the fact coming to their knowledge that almost 23 answer scripts, out of the randomly checked 2900 answer scripts, are having unchecked questionsanswers. 28. This Court cannot shut its eyes to such an illegality committed by the respondent-RPSC, which is casting severe aspersion upon the selection process of the State Civil Services, and therefore, the present writ petition is allowed, while issuing the following directions to the respondent-RPSC: (i) The RPSC shall manually check all the copies of the candidates, who had appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS and other Allied Services, and also, the merit shall be re-determined, and while making necessary correction in the mark-sheets of the Mains Examination, the respondents shall publish the revised results within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After undertaking such an exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then he shall be considered for appropriate appointment in his respective category, strictly in accordance with law. (ii) The examiners, who were assigned the work of checking the answer scripts in the present recruitment and have left the questions-answers unchecked in the answer scripts of the candidates, as identified, would be debarred from the examiner duties/expert duties, or any kind of duties with the RPSC, for the next three years. (iii) A cost of Rs. 15,00,000/- is imposed upon the RPSC, which shall be deposited with the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment, who shall appropriately disburse the said amount for the welfare of the poor students in the Government Primary Schools of the State. (iv) The compliance report shall be filed before this Court within a period of two months. Though the file is closed, but the compliance report shall be kept before this Court on 07.11.2018."
(3.) In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition stands allowed in the same terms, except cost, with the following directions:- (i) The RPSC shall manually check all the copies of the candidates, who had appeared in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.06.2013 for the post of RAS and other Allied Services, and also, the merit shall be redetermined, and while making necessary correction in the mark-sheets of the Mains Examination, the respondents shall publish the revised results within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. After undertaking such an exercise, if the petitioner is falling in merit, then he shall be considered for appropriate appointment in his respective category, strictly in accordance with law. (ii) The examiners, who were assigned the work of checking the answer scripts in the present recruitment and have left the questions-answers unchecked in the answer scripts of the candidates, as identified, would be debarred from the examiner duties/expert duties, or any kind of duties with the RPSC, for the next three years. (iii) The compliance report shall be filed before this Court within a period of two months. Though the file is closed, but the compliance report shall be kept before this Court on 07.11.2018.;