MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This batch of writ petitions seeks to challenge the correctness of final answer key of the preliminary examination issued by the respondent Rajasthan High Court dated 20.05.2019 for recruitment of 197 posts to Civil Judge Cadre, notified vide advertisement dated 15.11.2018. Challenge has been made to decision of the respondent-High Court establishment, deleting five questions of the question paper of preliminary examination. In the alternative, prayer has also been made for award of bonus marks for the deleted five questions. Also challenged answers to twenty other questions on different grounds.
(2.) It may be noted at the outset that as per the scheme of examination, the competitive examination for recruitment was to be conducted in two stages, i.e,. preliminary examination and main examination. Marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for main examination, are not counted for determination of final merit. All those candidates who secure same percentage of marks of the last cut off would be admitted to the main examination. Candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes category were required to secure 35% minimum marks and candidates of all other categories were required to secure 40% minimum marks in the preliminary examination. It was also notified that number of candidates to be permitted to appear in the main examination would be 15 times the total number of vacancies categorywise. It was also notified that number of candidates to be called for interview shall be, as far as possible, three times the number of vacancies categorywise, provided that a candidate in order to qualify for interview shall have to secure minimum 35% marks in each law paper and 40% marks aggregate in main examination. However, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes would be deemed to be eligible for interview if he/she has obtained minimum 30% marks in each of the law paper and 35% marks aggregate in the main examination. It was compulsory for every candidate to appear in each paper of written test as also before the interview board for viva-voce failing which he shall not be recommended for appointment. The preliminary examination carried 100 marks on the basis of hundred objective type questions, with one mark for each question. Each question had four options with only one correct answer. The question papers booklet distributed at the examination centers were in four series, namely, A, B, C, D, where due to reshuffling serial number of the questions would undergo a change in the paper, although the question remains the same with the same multiple options in the same order. Except the language papers, candidates were provided question paper booklet in bi-lingual, i.e., both English and Hindi and the candidates were provided OMR sheets in objective type where they have to simply darken the circle/bubble, indicating the correct answer from black/blue ball point pen as per the instruction no.6 provided on the top thereof. The answerbooks are evaluated with the help of the computer pr??ramme, as per one of the four circles/bubbles so darkened. In fact, question paper booklet contained 12 instructions. The instruction no.3 was to the effect that only one answer is to be given for each question. The instruction no.4 provided that if more than one answer is marked, it would be treated as wrong answer. Instruction no.6 was to the effect that each question has four options marked serially as 1,2,3,4 out of which only one is correct. Instruction no.7 read that there is no Negative Marking. Instruction no.10 provided that if there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature then out of Hindi and English version of the question, the English version will be treated as standard. A total 42118 candidates applied in response to the advertisement but only 27776 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination. Of them, only 3290 candidates were declared eligible for the main examination. The respondents immediately after conducting the preliminary examination on 31.03.2019 published the model answer key of the question paper on 01.04.2019, with noting that if any candidate has any objection regarding correctness of any of the answer, he/she should upload the same on the official website of the Rajasthan High Court between 04.04.2019 and 13.04.2019 by entering his application ID and date of birth. According to the respondent, a total number of 2910 objections against 86 model answers were received. 58 out of them pertained to the law papers of civil and criminal, whereas 30 and 15 were pertaining to the language papers of English proficiency and Hindi proficiency, respectively. All the objections were placed before the Examination Committee, which, in its discretion, constituted a Committee comprising two Hon'ble Judges of this Court with the subject experts of each subject, namely, Law, English and Hindi subjects, having vast experience in their respective fields, to consider the objections. The Expert Committee after examining the matter meticulously, disposed of all the objections in its meeting held on 03.05.2019. It submitted three separate reports for Law, English and Hindi subjects, thereby sustaining objections in regard to five questions and rejecting other objections in respect of all other questions.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that deletion of five questions has diminished the chances of the candidates, who diligently prepared for the examination and marked the correct answers to the question. Even in a case where there are multiple correct options, deletion of the questions would only work to the advantage of those who have chosen wrong answers, thereby putting the candidates who have attempted the correct answer in a disadvantageous position. The appropriate course, even in the case of multiple correct answers, would be to award marks to each of those candidates, who selected any one of correct answers, including with regard to Question No.A/50 where the option (2) is correct answer in English language and option (1) is correct answer in Hindi language. It is argued that the Expert Committee ought not to have given vague and unclear opinion. Its opinion in respect of five deleted questions was that either questions be deleted or any other appropriate decision, which is in the interest of the examinees, may be taken. The best decision in the interest of the examinees would have been to award marks to all the candidates who chose any one of the correct answers. The decision of the respondent to delete the questions is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable and is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that in view of the discrepancies found in number of questions/answers, this Court should appoint a fresh Expert Committee as was done by the Supreme Court in Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others - (2018) 8 SCC 81, in regard to recruitment to the post of School Lecturers. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (Writ) No.1092/2015 - Pankaj Oswal and Others Vs. Rahul Kumar Mahrawal and Another, decided vide judgment dated 14.05.2018, while dealing with a case pertaining to recruitment to the post of School Lecturers, followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Richal, supra, and directed a third Expert Committee to be constituted and required the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to nominate three Professors in his discretion to constitute such Committee. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in Girraj Prasad Sharma and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Another - 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 597, wherein the Division Bench of this Court appointed a Senior Advocate of this Court as Amicus Curiae to scrutinize the model answer key published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission pertaining to recruitment of Civil Judge Cadre in 2012, which agreed to his suggestions for deleting 6 questions, changing answer key in respect of 8 questions, which were wrongly deleted and correcting answer key in respect of other 6 questions. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel for some of the petitioners, relying on Single Bench judgment of Madras High Court dated 31.08.2010 in N. Sasi Kumar and Another Vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Others - 2010 0 Supreme (Mad) 3800, argued that where two answers are found to be correct the only rectification that could be done by the respondents is to award marks to all candidates, who chose either of the two correct options. The Allahabad High Court also in Sunil Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others - 2016 0 Supreme (All) 1568, refused to interfere with the decision of the U.P.P.S.C. in awarding marks to candidates, who chose either of the two correct answers to the questions. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner Arti Meena, submitted that the petitioner being a female candidate of Scheduled Tribe category, the respondents were required to notify a separate cut off for female candidates in each reserved category, viz., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes etc. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondent, submitted that scope of judicial review of correctness of answer key has been considered by the Supreme Court as well as this Court time and again. The Courts have entertained such challenge only on very limited grounds and have always given due weightage to the opinion of the subject experts. Even if there are any conflicting views in text books or other study material, each person should bow down to the opinion of experts. The court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise, for academic matters are best left to academicians. It has also been held that the courts should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. So far as present matters are concerned, the petitioners have failed to prove that the answers are palpably incorrect or demonstrably wrong. It is submitted that the entire action of the respondents in deleting 5 questions and turning down the objections with regard to remaining questions is perfectly in accordance with law. The Courts have always been slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against the experts. Reliance in support of this argument has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others - (2018) 8 SCC 81, Ranvijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - (2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Another Vs. Rahul Singh and Another - (2018) 7 SCC 254, Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta - (1983) 4 SCC 309 and that of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12277/2015 decided on 06.10.2015. It is submitted that in the present matters, there being no allegations of bias or mala fides against the Expert Committee, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.;