RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. versus RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 983, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
983
RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.
v.
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
& ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4695-4699 of 2018)
MAY 03, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Service Law – State Public Service Commission advertised
posts of School Lecturers for various subjects under Secondary
Education Department – Examination was conducted – Answer keys
were published – Commission invited objections regarding the
answer key – Candidates submitted objections – Commission
declared the result –  Appellants contended that certain questions
need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court issued directions
that certain questions needed re-examination by experts – Pursuant
thereto, Expert committee re-examined the objections and the report
was filed by the Commission – Appellants contended that in revision
also, certain mistakes have not been corrected – Held: Challenges
relating to correctness of answer key has to be entertained on a
very limited ground and due weight has to be given to the opinion
of the subject experts – In instant case, the Expert Committee,
constituted for 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 revise the results of
appellants – Thus, report of the Expert Committee which has been
accepted by the Commission has to be implemented.
Service Law – State Public Service Commission
conducted
examination – Answer keys published – Commission invited
objections regarding the answer key – Appellants contended that
certain questions need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court
issued directions that certain questions needed re-examination by
experts – Pursuant thereto, expert committee re-examined the
objections and the report was filed by the Commission – However,
Commission revised the result of only 311 appellants – Held:
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 983
983
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates –
Key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except
those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined –
When the key answers of the candidates who appeared in the
examination are correct, they are entitled for revision of their result,
since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with 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 – Equity.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants have pointed out several questions
in paper which according to them have not been correctly
answered by the Expert Committee. However, the answers given
by the Expert Committee are correct and no error can be found
with the answers of the Expert Committee with regard to the
questions which have been pointed out. The Expert Committee,
constituted  for 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.  Thus, the  Report of the Expert Committee which
has been accepted by the Commission need to be implemented.
[Para 20]
2. 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. The key answers having been corrected, merit
of all the candidates except those who have already been selected
needs to be redetermined.   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 revised 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
was given the task of revising the key answers.[Para 23][999-D-F]
Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others
v. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984]
1 SCR 73; Manish Ujwal and others v. Maharishi
Dayanand Saraswati University and others (2005) 13
SCC 744 – relied on.
Guru Nank Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others
(2005) 13 SCC 749; Rajesh Kumar and others v. State
of Bihar and others (2013) 4 SCC 690 : [2013]
4 SCR 753; Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors.
dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 of
Rajasthan High Court – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 1 SCR 73
relied on
Para 14
(2005) 13 SCC 744
relied on
Para 12
(2005) 13 SCC 749
referred to
Para 13
[2013] 4 SCR 753
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4695-
4699 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Sp.. Appl. Writ Nos.
191, 206, 209, & 230 of 2017.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 4722-4725, 4702, 4700-4701, 4711-4712, 4707-4710,
4703-4706, 4726, 4713-4720, 4721, 4727, 4730, 4728, 4729, 4731 and
4754 of 2018.
N. K. Mody, Vikash Singh, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Advs.,
Ankur Mody, Ms. Siddhi Padia, Ms. Santosh Sharma, Pardeep Gupta,
Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Moazzam Ali, Wazir Singh Malik, Dr.
(Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Prasant Agarwal, Sagar Kumar, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, L. M. Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Ms. Sushma
Singh, R. Singh Chhillar, M/s Ravi
Chandra Prakash & Co., Mukesh
Kumar Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, V. Vyas, Rajiv Kumar,
Shantanu J., Anil Kumar Gautam, Ankur, Syed Mahaboob, P. Jegan,
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, V. Vyas, Abhishek
Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Brijeshj Kalappa,
Neelkanth D., Ankolekar Gurudatta, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Amita,
Amit, Prashant Bhushan, Govind Jee, Omanakuttan K.K., Ms. Archana
Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Rathi, Utsav, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Surya Kant, Pranav Vyas, Ms. Shifali
Jain, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Aditya Pushkal Khanna, Anish Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Harsha, Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Ms. Priyanka,
Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Milind Kumar, Rohit K.
Singh, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari,
P. Saravanaraja, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. 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 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 – Paper-I – General Awareness and
General Studies, and Paper-II 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 Paper-I as well as Paper-II.  On
22.09.2016, the Commission declared the result, against which
several writ petitions were filed questioning various answers as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
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 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 Paper-I 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 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. 14306-14310 of 2017 – Richal
& ors. etc.etc. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission &
ors. etc. etc.  for deciding this batch of appeals.
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
989
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 re-examined 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 re-examine the grievances of writ
petitioners/appellants.  An affidavit 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 re-examined
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 re-examine claims of petitioners, were reported to be revised.
6. In the subjects of General Knowledge (Paper-I) answers
to five
questions were required to be revised; in Paper-II
(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 A-1 (Pages 5) True
and correct copies of reports of Experts in nine subjects is
being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 (Pages
6-46).  It is stated that identity of Experts is not being
disclosed.  That on the basis of reports of the experts the
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
result of candidates who have not been appointed 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 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 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 Paper-I including
question No. 58 and certain other questions.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
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 the grievances having been
taken care of by the Expert Committee and the result of non-selected
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 re-challenge
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.
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 Vice-
Chancellor 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 paper-setter with regard to multiple choice
of the objective type test for admission in medical courses through
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
combined Pre-Medical 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
paper-setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished
by the paper-setter 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 well-versed in the particular subject
would regard as correct. The contention of the University is
falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
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 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
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
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 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 re-evaluation was and is a
better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
15. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter 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 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
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Court that certain questions need re-examination 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 re-examined 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. [p.2-
3 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.3-4
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. During the course of hearing, learned counsel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
997
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:
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
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to 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 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.
(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
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
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 the Commission
within a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessary
consequential steps thereafter.
Ankit Gyan
           Appeals disposed of.