1

REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4695­4699 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14306­14310/2017) 

RISHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION  … RESPONDENT(S)

& ORS. ETC. ETC.

WITH 

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4722­4725   of   2018   (arising   out   of

SLP(C) Nos. 19151­19154/2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4702 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

14481/2017); 

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4700­4701   of   2018   (arising   out   of

SLP(C) Nos. 14356­14357/2017);

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4711­4712   of   2018   (arising   out   of

SLP(C) Nos. 14593­14594/2017); 

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4707­4710   of   2018   (arising   out   of

SLP(C) Nos. 14581­14584/2017); 

Civil Appeal No. 4703­4706 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)

No. 14522­14525/2017); 

Civil Appeal No. 4726 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

19157/2017); 

Civil   Appeal   Nos.   4713­4720   of   2018   (arising   out   of

SLP(C) Nos. 14947­14954/2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4721 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

18982/2017) 

Civil Appeal No. 4727 of 2018 (arising out of  SLP(C) No.

21506/2017) 

Civil Appeal No. 4730 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

29556/2017) 

Civil Appeal No. 4728 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

24264/2017)

2

Civil Appeal No. 4729 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

28724/2017)

Civil Appeal No. 4731 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.

32467/2017)

C.A.No.4754 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11674/2018

(Diary No(s). 9579)2018 

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Delay Condoned. Leave granted.

2.This   batch   of   appeals   questions   the   judgment

delivered by Special Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan High

Court. The Special Appellate judgment of Rajasthan High

Court dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur and Judgment

dated 13.04.2017 delivered at Jaipur Bench, affirming the

judgments   of   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ

petitions filed by the appellants are under challenge.

3.The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam –

2015   conducted   by   Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission

(hereinafter referred to as “Commission”), in which they

3

could   not   be   declared   successful.     Brief   facts   giving

rise to these appeals are:­

(i)The   Rajasthan   Public   Service   Commission

vide   its   advertisement   dated   16.10.2015   advertised

13,000 posts of School Lecturers for various subjects

under Secondary Education Department, Government of

Rajasthan.  The examination consisted of two papers –

Paper­I – General Awareness and General Studies, and

Paper­II of respective subjects.  The examination was

conducted on 17.07.2016.  On 12.08.2016, answer keys

were   published   inviting   objections   regarding   the

answer   key.     Many   candidates   submitted   objections

with   regard   to   different   subjects,   with   regard   to

Paper­I   as   well   as   Paper­II.     On   22.09.2016,   the

Commission declared the result, against which several

writ petitions were filed questioning various answers

as per final answer key.   The learned Single Judge

vide its judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 in Writ

Petition No. 15028/2016   ­   Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs.

RPSC   &   Ors.  disposed   of   the   writ   petition   with

various   directions.   One   of   the   directions   was   to

4

upload the revised answer key along with report of

Experts on the website within one week.  In pursuance

of   directions   of   learned   Single   Judge   dated

08.11.2016,   final   answer   key   was   published   on

18.11.2016 and 18 questions in Paper­I were deleted.

Second   round   of   litigations   was   started   by   filing

various   Writ   Petitions   by   the   candidates   raising

various objections to the answer key.   The learned

Single Judge vide its judgment dated 08.02.2017 at

Jodhpur dismissed the bunch of writ petitions after

considering   the   objections   raised   by   several   writ

petitioners.     Learned   Single   Judge   accepted   the

Expert Committee's report on various answers.  

(ii)  Against   the   judgment   dated   08.02.2017,   writ

appeals were filed by various candidates at Jodhpur.

The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 08.03.2017

dismissed the writ appeals confirming the judgment of

learned   Single   Judge.     While   dismissing   the   writ

appeals,   various   directions   were   issued   by   the

Division   Bench   to   the   Commission   with   regard   to

preparation and publication of answer key and action

5

to be taken against those who are entrusted with the

preparation of key answers.   At Jaipur also, writ

petitions were dismissed, against which writ appeals

were   filed   and   vide   judgment   dated   13.04.2017,

following the judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at

Jodhpur,   the   Division   Bench   also   dismissed   the

different writ appeals. 

(iii)   Following   judgment   dated   08.03.2017,   the

Division Bench both at Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissed

several other writ appeals.  Before us, the appeals

filed   against   the   judgment   dated   08.03.2017   and

judgment dated 13.04.2017 and various other judgments

following   earlier   judgments   have   been   filed.   The

judgment dated 08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur Bench

is the main judgment which has been followed by the

High   Court   in   several   judgments   for   deciding   this

batch of appeals.  It shall be sufficient to refer to

and   consider   the   Division   Bench   judgment   dated

08.03.2017 giving rise to the Civil Appeal arising

out of SLP (C) Nos. 14306­14310 of 2017 –   Richal &

ors.   etc.etc.   Vs.   Rajasthan   Public   Service

6

Commission & ors. etc. etc.   for deciding this batch

of appeals.

4.In this batch of appeals, various applications for

impleadment and intervention have been filed.   We allow

all the impleadment and intervention applications. This

Court after hearing the matter on 16.01.2018 passed the

following order:­

“The Rajasthan Public Service Commission

(RPSC) had issued an advertisement for filling

up   of   more   than   13,000   posts   of   school

lecturers   in   the   State   of   Rajasthan.   The

written test was conducted pursuant thereto.

The   key   to   the   answers   was   also   published.

Some   of   the   candidates   questioned   that   the

aforesaid key does not give correct answers to

some of the questions. It was mentioned that

few questions were not even correctly framed.

On that basis, a writ petition was filed in

the   High   Court.   Learned   Single   Judge   after

going   into   the   said   grievances   of   those

candidates gave a direction 4 for constituting

the Expert Committee to examine as to whether

the key to the answers is correct. The Expert

Committee   gave   its   report   recommending

deletion of 18 questions which according to

the Expert Committee were not correctly framed

and, therefore, needed to be deleted. It also

corrected the answers to some other questions.

This led to second round of litigation as

the   petitioners   herein   (who   were   the   writ

petitioners in the High Court) submitted that

even   the   aforesaid   report   of   the   Expert

Committee was not correct. It was submitted

7

that   13   questions   were   wrongly   deleted.   In

support of this, the petitioners refer to the

text   books   of   the   NCRT   as   per   which   those

questions were rightly framed and there was no

question to delete them. It was also submitted

that five questions were still wrongly framed,

which needed to be deleted or correct answers

as   suggested   by   the   Expert   Committee   be

corrected. The High Court has dismissed this

writ petition. It has inter alia observed that

the   matter   be   given   quietus   inasmuch   as   it

would be in the public interest not to delay

the   appointment   of   13,000   teachers   in   the

State of Rajasthan. 

We are informed that after declaration of

the result, successful candidates have already

been given appointment. It is pointed out by

the learned counsel for the petitioners that

many   posts   are   still   lying   vacant.   They

further submit that they have no objection if

the   candidates   who   have   already   been

appointed, their appointment is not disturbed

and at the same time the grievances as pointed

out by the petitioners be looked into by the

Expert   Committee   again   and   if   it   finds

justification   in   the   claim   of   the   5

petitioners, fully or partially, only cases of

other candidates who have not been appointed

be re­examined on the basis of the report that

would   be   given   by   the   Expert   Committee's

recommendations on these aspects. The learned

counsel   for   RPSC   wants   some   time   to   take

instructions in this behalf.

List the matters on 06.02.2018.”

5.In pursuance of our directions dated 16.01.2018, an

Expert   Committee   was   appointed   to   re­examine   the

grievances of writ petitioners/appellants.   An affidavit

8

dated 14.04.2018 sworned by Ramdev Siroya has been filed

by the Commission.  It is stated in the affidavit that on

the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers in

all   the   nine   subjects   for   which   these   Experts   were

appointed   has   been   re­examined   and   the   answers   were

revised.  It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs 5 and

6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect:­

"5.On the basis of reports of Experts,

overall   22   answers   in   all   the   nine

subjects   for   which   these   experts   were

appointed   to   re­examine   claims   of

petitioners, were reported to be revised.

6.In the subjects of General Knowledge

(Paper­I) answers to five questions were

required   to   be   revised;   in   Paper­II

(subject)   in   commerce   answers   of   three

questions   were   required   to   be   revised;

three questions in subject Geography, Two

Questions   in   subject   Hindi   (Teaching

method); in subject History one question;

in   subject   Political   Science   four

question; and in subject Rajasthani three

questions were reported to be revised. A

chart   showing   question   numbers   subject,

answer in final key and new Expert Report

is   being   filed   herewith   and   marked   as

ANNEXURE A­1 (Pages 5)   True and correct

copies   of   reports   of   Experts   in   nine

subjects   is   being   filed   herewith   and

marked as ANNEXURE A­2 (Pages 6­46).    It

is stated that identity of Experts is not

being disclosed.   That on the basis of

reports   of   the   experts   the   result   of

candidates   who   have   not   been   appointed

9

was   revised   by   the   Rajasthan   Public

Service Commission.” 

6.In the affidavit, it has also been stated that out of

total number of posts in all the subjects, 729 candidates

who were offered appointment did not join.  Further, 316

candidates   who   were   although   selected   but   their

candidature   were   rejected.     Thus   in   all   1045   posts

remained vacant.   A detailed chart subject wise showing

all the details of posts advertised, candidates selected

and   recommended   and   appointments,   number   of   candidates

who did join and such candidates whose candidatures were

rejected   etc.   has   also   been   annexed   alongwith   the

affidavit.   It has been further stated in the affidavit

that in the present batch of appeals, there are in all

311   candidates.     It   is   stated   in   the   revised   results

prepared after Report by Experts Committee 48 petitioners

from all the Special Leave Petitions are found to be in

merit for selection, which candidates are spread over in

nine subjects.

7. A   reply   affidavit   to   the   affidavit   filed   by

Commission dated 14.04.2018 has also been filed in Civil

10

Appeal of Richal & Ors.  In the reply affidavit, it has

been   stated   that   the   Commission   has   not   disclosed   the

actual marks secured by the last selected candidate in

terms of the first selection in various categories.    It

was stated that the Commission is required to prepare a

Revised   Notional   Select   List   of   candidates   presently

selected in light of the revision undertaken by Experts

based   on   actual   marks   secured   by   the   last   selected

candidates in various categories.   The appellants have

also brought on record the copy of representation dated

23.01.2018   submitted   by   them   after   the   order   of   this

Court dated 16.01.2018.

8.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants

at length as well as learned counsel appearing for the

Commission, learned counsel appearing for the State of

Rajasthan   and   learned   counsel   seeking   impleadment   and

intervention. 

9.Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that

although substantial grievances raised by the appellants

in these appeals stand satisfied by the Expert Committee

11

Report, which was appointed in pursuance of direction,

there are still few grievances after revision carried out

by the Experts.  It is submitted that in revision also,

certain   mistakes   have   not   been   corrected.     Learned

counsel for the appellants in support of their submission

has   referred   to   few   questions   of   Paper­I   including

question No. 58 and certain other questions.

10.One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel

for   the   appellants   is   that   the   marks   of   18   questions

which were deleted from paper No.1 were redistributed in

the rest of the questions whereas the marks should have

been   allocated   to   only   those   candidates   who   have

attempted such questions. Those candidates, who even did

not   attempt   those   questions,   were   allocated   the   marks

which was not in accordance with law. The marks should

have   been   allocated   only   to   those   candidates   who

attempted   deleted   questions,   in   alternative,   it   is

submitted   that   full   marks   with   regard   to   18   deleted

questions ought to have been given to all the candidates.

11.Learned   counsel   for   the   Commission   refuting   the

submissions of the appellants submitted that almost all

12

the grievances having been taken care of by the Expert

Committee   and   the   result   of   non­selected   candidates

having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered

in   these   appeals.   It   is   submitted   that   Experts   having

revised   the   key   answers   and   having   now   submitted   a

Report, which has been accepted by the Commission, this

Court shall not permit the appellants to re­challenge the

decision of Expert Committee.   It is submitted that out

of all the Special Leave Petitioners, only 48 have been

found selected.

12.We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   the   learned

counsel for the parties and perused the records.

13.The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of

appeals relates to correctness of final   key answers as

uploaded by the Commission after considering objections

thereto. The appellants' case is that the treatment of

the objections by the Expert Committee was not based on

authoritative   text   books   on   the   subject   and   several

errors crept into the answer key vitiating the merits of

the candidates affecting the entire selection.

13

14.The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of

correctness   of   key   answer   had   been   considered   by   this

Court   time   and   again.   This   Court   had   entertained   such

challenges on very limited ground and has always given

due weight to the opinions of subject experts. A three

Judge Bench of this Court in   Kanpur University, through

Vice­Chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others,

1983 (4) SCC 309,  had occasion to consider a case where

challenge was made to the key answers supplied by the

paper­setter   with   regard   to   multiple   choice   of   the

objective   type   test   for   admission   in   medical   courses

through combined Pre­Medical Test. The High Court while

considering the challenge of the candidates to various

key   answers   accepted   the   challenge   to   different

questions. With regard to some of the questions the High

Court held that the key answer is not the correct answer.

This   Court   repelling   the   challenge   made   the   following

observations in paragraphs 15 and 16:

“15.  The findings of the High Court

raise a question of great importance to

the   student   community.   Normally,   one

would be inclined to the view, especially

if   one   has   been   a   paper­setter   and   an

examiner, that the key answer furnished

14

by the paper­setter and accepted by the

University   as   correct,   should   not   be

allowed   to   be   challenged.   One   way   of

achieving it is not to publish the key

answer at all. If the University had not

published the key answer along with the

result   of   the   Test,   no   controversy

would have arisen in this case. But that

is not a correct way of looking at these

matters   which   involve   the   future   of

hundreds   of   students   who   are   aspirants

for admission to professional courses. If

the key answer were kept secret in this

case,   the   remedy   would   have   been   worse

than   the   disease   because,   so   many

students   would   have   had   to   suffer   the

injustice in silence. The publication of

the key answer has unravelled an unhappy

state of affairs to which the University

and   the   State   Government   must   find   a

solution.   Their   sense   of   fairness   in

publishing the key answer has given them

an opportunity to have a closer look at

the   system   of   examinations   which   they

conduct.   What   has   failed   is   not   the

computer but the human system.

16.Shri   Kacker,   who   appears   on

behalf of the University, contended that

no challenge should be allowed to be made

to   the   correctness   of   a   key   answer

unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.

We agree that the key answer should be

assumed to be correct unless it is proved

to   be   wrong  and  that   it  should   not   be

held   to   be   wrong   by   an   inferential

process of reasoning or by a process of

rationalisation.   It   must   be   clearly

demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say,

it must be such as no reasonable body of

men well­versed in the particular subject

would regard as correct. The contention

of   the   University   is   falsified   in   this

15

case   by   a   large   number   of   acknowledged

textbooks,   which   are   commonly   read   by

students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no

room for doubt that the answer given by

the   students   is   correct   and   the   key

answer is incorrect.”

12.Following   the   above   judgment   in  Kanpur   University

(supra)  this   Court   in  Manish   Ujwal   and   others   vs.

Maharishi   Dayanand   Saraswati   University   and   others,

2005(13) SCC 744,   reiterated the principle in following

words in paragraphs 9 and 10:

 “9.  In  Kanpur   University  v.  Samir

Gupta considering a similar problem, this

Court   held   that   there   is   an   assumption

about the key answers being correct and

in   case   of   doubt,   the   Court   would

unquestionably prefer the key answers. It

is   for   this   reason   that   we   have   not

referred to those key answers in respect

whereof there is a doubt as a result of

difference   of   opinion   between   the

experts.   Regarding   the   key   answers   in

respect whereof the matter is beyond the

realm of doubt, this Court has held that

it   would   be   unfair   to   penalise   the

students for not giving an answer which

accords with the key answer, that is to

say, with an answer which is demonstrated

to be wrong. There is no dispute about

the   aforesaid   six   key   answers   being

demonstrably   wrong   and   this   fact   has

rightly   not   been   questioned   by   the

learned   counsel   for   the   University.   In

this   view,   students   cannot   be   made   to

16

suffer   for   the   fault   and   negligence   of

the University.

10.  The   High   Court   has   committed   a

serious   illegality   in   coming   to   the

conclusion that “it cannot be said with

certainty   that   answers   to   the   six

questions given in the key answers were

erroneous   and   incorrect”.   As   already

noticed, the key answers are palpably and

demonstrably erroneous. In that view of

the   matter,   the   student   community,

whether the appellants or intervenors or

even those who did not approach the High

Court or this Court, cannot be made to

suffer on account of errors committed by

the University. For the present, we say

no   more   because   there   is   nothing   on

record as to how this error crept up in

giving the erroneous key answers and who

was negligent. At the same time, however,

it   is   necessary   to   note   that   the

University and those who prepare the key

answers   have   to   be   very   careful   and

abundant   caution   is   necessary   in   these

matters   for   more   than   one   reason.   We

mention few of those; first and paramount

reason being the welfare of the student

as a wrong key answer can result in the

merit being made a casualty. One can well

understand   the   predicament   of   a   young

student at the threshold of his or her

career if despite giving correct answer,

the student suffers as a result of wrong

and  demonstrably   erroneous   key   answers;

the second reason is that the courts are

slow   in   interfering   in   educational

matters which,  in  turn, casts  a higher

responsibility   on   the   University   while

preparing the key answers; and thirdly,

in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in

favour   of   the   University   and   not   in

17

favour of the students. If this attitude

of   casual   approach   in   providing   key

answers   is   adopted   by   the   persons

concerned,   directions   may   have   to   be

issued   for   taking   appropriate   action,

including   disciplinary   action,   against

those   responsible   for   wrong   and

demonstrably   erroneous   key   answers,  but

we refrain from issuing such directions

in the present case.”

13.To the same effect, this Court in    Guru Nank Dev

University vs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749,

had directed the University to revaluate the answers of 8

questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE.

This   Court   also   disapproved   the   course   adopted   by   the

University which has given the marks to all the students

who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of

whether someone had answered questions or not.

14.Another   judgment   which   is   referred   to   is  Rajesh

Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4)

SCC 690, where this Court had occasion to consider the

case pertaining to erroneous evaluation using the wrong

answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission invited

applications against the posts of Junior Engineer(Civil).

Selection process comprised of a written objective type

18

examination.   Unsuccessful   candidates   assailed   the

selection. Single Judge of the High Court referred the

“model answer key” to experts. Based on the report of the

experts, Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of

100 are wrong.   The Single Judge held that the entire

examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the

appointments so made on the basis thereof. The Letters

Patent Appeal was filed by certain candidates which was

partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The   Division   Bench   modified   the   order   passed   by   the

Single   Judge   and   declared   that   the   entire   examination

need not be cancelled. The order of Division Bench was

challenged wherein this Court in paragraph 19 has held:

“19.  The   submissions   made   by   Mr   Rao

are not without merit. Given the nature

of the defect in the answer key the most

natural and logical way of correcting the

evaluation of the scripts was to correct

the key and get the answer scripts re­

evaluated   on   the   basis   thereof.   There

was, in the circumstances, no compelling

reason for directing a fresh examination

to be held by the Commission especially

when  there  was  no  allegation  about  any

malpractice,   fraud   or   corrupt   motives

that could possibly vitiate the earlier

examination to call for a fresh attempt

by   all   concerned.   The   process   of   re­

evaluation   of   the   answer   scripts   with

19

reference   to   the   correct   key   will   in

addition   be   less   expensive   apart   from

being quicker. The process would also not

give  any  unfair advantage  to  anyone of

the candidates on account of the time lag

between the examination earlier held and

the one that may have been held pursuant

to   the   direction   of   the   High   Court.

Suffice it to say that the re­evaluation

was and is a better option, in the facts

and circumstances of the case.”

15.The key answers prepared by the paper­setter or the

examining body is presumed to have been prepared after

due   deliberations.   To   err   is   human.   There   are   various

factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key

answers.   The   publication   of   key   answers   is   a   step   to

achieve   transparency   and   to   give   an   opportunity   to

candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An

opportunity to file objections against the key answers

uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness

and perfection in the process. The objections to the key

answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter

corrective   measures,   if   any,   should   be   taken   by   the

examining body. In the present case we have noted that

after considering the objections final key answers were

published   by   the   Commission   thereafter   several   writ

20

petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the

key   answers   adopted   by   the   Commission.   The   High   Court

repelled   the   challenge   accepting   the   views   of   the

experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up

in this Court by filing these appeals.

16.This Court while hearing the appeals found substance

in   some   of   the   submissions   raised   before   us   and

appellants   having   satisfied   this   Court   that   certain

questions   need   re­examination   by   experts,   this   Court

issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant

to the directions of this Court the Expert Committee re­

examined the questions with regard to which objections

were raised in these appeals. After the order of this

Court   dated   16.01.2018   the   Commission   adopted   Expert

Committee   Report   which   re­examined   the   questions   with

regard to which objections were raised before us in these

appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018 has been filed by

the   Commission.   The   affidavit   contains   the   following

statements:

(i)   on   the   basis   of   the   Report   of

Experts, Answers to 22 Questions across

9 subjects were corrected and revised.

21

[p.2­3   pr.6   of   Affidavit   ]   [Chart   has

been annexed at p.5]

(ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted

by Experts w.r.t. Questions in Paper I

(General Awareness & General Studies) as

per   Chart   [p.5   of   Affidavit]   reveals

that:

(a)  Experts   accepted  Petitioner’s  

Representation   and   retained   3  

questions (Q Nos. 53, 57,  60) of 18 

earlier deleted questions.

(b)  Experts   accepted  Petitioners’  

Representation   and   corrected   the  

answer of 1 question  (Q.No.3) in

     the  remaining 57 questions.

    (c)  Experts   rejected  Petitioners’  

Representation seeking  correction

of answer of 5 questions  (Q. Nos.

     25,  28, 33, 49, 58).

(iii) RPSC has stated that out of the

total number of Advertised posts(13,098)

1045   vacancies   in   the   post   of   School

Lecturers   still   exist.   [p.3   pr.7   of

Affidavit]  [Chart   has   been   annexed   at

p.47]

(iv)   RPSC   has   stated   that   48   of   311

Special   Leave   Petitioners   before   this

Hon’ble   Court   are   within   merit   for

selection   as   School   Lecturers   after

revision of their answer scripts.[ p.3­4

pr.8 of Affidavit]

17.By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to

supply   the   Report   of   the   Expert   Committee   to   all   the

parties.   The   copies   of   the   Report   have   been   supplied.

22

During   the   course   of   hearing,   learned   counsel   for   the

appellants  submitted  that substantial grievances raised

in   these   appeals   have   been   redressed   by   the   Expert

Committee.   The   representations   made   by   the   appellants

have been substantially accepted as noted above. However,

learned counsel for the appellants have contended that

certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still

not   correct.   Before   us   certain   questions   have   been

pointed out which according to the appellants have not

been satisfactorily dealt with by the Expert Committee.

It shall suffice to refer to the question No.58 of paper

No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the

Expert   Committee   has   accepted   option   No.4   as   correct

option   whereas   correct   option   is   option   NO.3.   Learned

counsel for the appellants has to make his point home has

placed before us the following  chart:

Question

No.58

Option 

Answers

RPSC 

Answer

Expert

Report

(p.15)

Petitioner 

Answer

Evidence in support

Minimum 

Number 

of 

Working 

Hours 

per week

for the 

teacher 

(1) 35 

Teaching 

Plus 

Preparation

Hours

(2) 40 

Teaching 

plus 

Option

4

Option

4 

Option 

3

1. The RTE Act 

specifies that 

“Minimum number of 

working hours per 

week for the 

teacher : Forty 

Five including 

preparation hours”

23

in RTE 

Act, 

2009 is

preparation

hours

(3) 45 

Teaching 

Hours

(4) 45 

Teaching 

plus 

preparation

hours

2. RPSC asked same 

question in School 

Lecturer Exam 2013 

and considered “45 

Teaching Hours” as 

correct Answer.

Expert Committee 

has itself at p.15 

quoted the RTE Act,

2009 quoted the 

minimum teaching 

hours as “45 

Teaching including 

Preparation Hours”

18.At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first

blush, we also observed that there may be substance in

what   is   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the

appellants with regard to question No.21, however, when

we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given

by the Expert Committee, we are inclined to agree with

the answer given by the Expert Committee. The reason for

our accepting the opinion of the Expert Committee is as

follows: The question No.58 which was asked  was:“Minimum

Number of Working Hours per week for the teacher in RTE

Act, 2009 is”.

19.Thus answer had to indicate the number of working

hours.   Notification   has   been   issued   under   the   RTE   Act

24

where minimum teaching hours for a week is mentioned as :

“45 Teaching including Preparation Hours” . Thus minimum

number of working hours per week has been provided as 45

which   figure   includes   both   teaching   and   preparation

hours.   The   statutory   provision   uses   the   word  teaching

including preparation hours  whereas answer uses the words

teaching plus preparation hours.  There is no dispute that

figure 45 is a correct figure only issue is with regard

to whether option No.3 is correct or option No.4. Option

No.3   mentions   “45   Teaching   Hours”.   The   answer   No.3   is

obviously   not   according   to   the   statutory   prescription

which provides “45 Teaching including Preparation Hours” .

Correct answer, thus, is option No.4 which mentions   “45

Teaching plus preparation hours” . Instead of using the

word including as used in statutory provision the  answer

uses word  plus. When the figure 45 includes teaching as

well as preparation hours the use of word teaching plus

preparation hours connotes the same meaning.  We, thus do

not find any substance in the above submission.

20.Learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed

out several other questions in paper No.1 which according

25

to the learned counsel for the appellants have not been

correctly   answered   by   the   Expert   Committee.   We   have

considered few more questions as pointed out and perused

the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of

the view that no error can be found with the answers of

the Expert Committee with regard to three more questions

which   have   been   pointed   out   before   us.   The   Expert

Committee,  constituted to validation of answer key, has

gone through every objection raised by the appellants and

has satisfactorily answered the same. The Commission has

also accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and has

proceeded to revised the result of 311 appellants before

us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the Expert

Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need

to be implemented. 

21.One of the submissions raised by the appellants is

that marks of deleted questions ought not to have been

redistributed in other questions. It is submitted that

either all the candidates should have been given equal

marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to

26

have been   given only to those candidates who attempted

those questions. 

22.The questions having been deleted from the answers,

the question paper has to be treated as containing the

question   less   the   deleted   questions.   Redistribution   of

marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to

be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a

uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to

the number of the candidates. We are of the view that all

the candidates have been benefited by the redistributed

of marks in accordance with the number of correct answers

which have been given by them. We, thus, do not find any

fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks.

The High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.

23.In   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   Commission   it   is

mentioned that the result has been revised of only 311

appellants who are before this Court. We are of the view

that key answers having been corrected, merit of all the

candidates except those who have already been selected

needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018

it is mentioned that this exercise shall not affect those

27

who have already been selected. We, thus, are of the view

that the Commission should revise the entire result of

all the candidates except those who have been selected

on   the   basis   of   the   report   of   Expert   Committee   and

publish revise result of all the candidates. When the key

answers are correct of the candidates who appeared in the

examination,   they   are   entitled   for   revision   of   their

result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but

lies with the examination body. It shall not be equitable

to not extend the benefit to those candidates who have

not   come   to   the   Court   being   satisfied   with   the   steps

taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee

which was given the task of revising the key answers.

24.In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of

these appeals with the following directions:

(1)The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed

to revise the result of all the candidates including all

the   appellants   on   the   basis   of   Report   of   the   Expert

Committee   constituted   in   pursuance   of   our   order   dated

16.01.2018 and publish the revised result.

28

(2)While carrying the above exercise the Commission need

not revise the result of all those candidates whose names

were included in the Select List earlier published. We

having already pointed out that the appointments shall

not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity

to   revise   their   result.   Thus,   this   exercise   shall   be

undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included

in the Select List.

(3)The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks

of   the   last   selected   candidates   in   the   respective

categories who were included in the Select List on the

basis   of   which   appointments   have   been   made   by   the

Commission.

(4)On the basis of the revised result, those candidates

who   achieve   equal   or   more   marks   in   their   respective

categories   shall   be   offered   appointments   against   1045

vacancies as has been mentioned   by the Commission in

paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above.

(5)The entire exercise of revising the result and making

recommendations   for   appointments   shall   be   completed   by

29

the   Commission   within   a   period   of   three   months   from

today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps

thereafter. 

..........................J.

( A.K. SIKRI )

..........................J.

    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI,

MAY 03,2018.