Sharma, Shri Manoj Bhardwaj, Shri Anoop Dhand, Shri Rajendra Soni, counsel v. Samir Gupta – AIR 1983 SC 1230 & Ors.

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Mahesh Gupta, Shri Poonam Chand Sharma, Shri Manoj Bhardwaj, Shri Anoop Dhand, Shri Rajendra Soni, counsel for petitioners Shri S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General with Shri Shantanu Kumawat, for respondents #### By the Court:- CW10972/2009, 10566/2009, 10762'/2009, 11901/2009, 11978/2009, 11845/2009, 5727/2011, 11093/2009 // 2 // In these matters, petitioners have made a grievance that answers of questions no.26, 29, 68 of A series, no.51, 57, 64 of B series, no.3, 11, 19, 65 of C series and no.46, 79 of D series, of Compounder/Nurse (Ayurved) Junior Grade Competitive Examination, 2008 held on 29.06.2009 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, were incorrect. Learned counsel for petitioners, to substantiate their plea, cited judgment of supreme court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta – AIR 1983 SC 1230, and judgments of this court in Lalit Mohan Sharma Vs.

State of Rajasthan and Others – 2005 (8) RDD 3071 and Manish Ujjawal Vs. State of Rajasthan – 2005 (8) RDD 257. Learned counsel for petitioners jointly submit that after appointment to the posts pursuant to impugned advertisement, there are still several vacancies available with the respondent department. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petitions and submitted that writ petitions cannot be entertained on such disputed question. To substantiate his plea, learned counsel relied on a judgment of supreme court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another – (2010) 6 SCC 759, wherein it has been held that court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or selection board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof; it was not permissible for High Court to examine question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when State Public Service Commission had assessed inter-se merit of candidates.

Learned counsel for respondents submits that appointments have already been made and therefore the merit cannot be now revised. Correctness of answers of the questions, can be got examined from experts in the field. Respondent RPSC has experts with it to examine such disputes. This court, in CW10972/2009, 10566/2009, 10762'/2009, 11901/2009, 11978/2009, 11845/2009, 5727/2011, 11093/2009 // 3 // view of the decision of supreme court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Another, supra, cannot act like an expert body to examine these questions because the respondent RPSC is an expert body and it has assistances of experts in the subject concerned. Petitioners may therefore make representation to the Secretary of respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission and produce along-with that books/authorities/ relevant material, on the basis of which they claim answers of above referred questions to be incorrect.

The Secretary of respondent RPSC with concurrence of its Chairman, may then issue order for examination of those questions through expert body from the filed of subject. If, on consideration of that representation, it is found that grievance of petitioners is genuine, it may revise the merit list. However, consideration of petitioner for the appointments may be confined to the posts which have either remained vacant out of the notified/advertised posts pursuant to the advertisement in question, or are otherwise lying vacant with the department in addition thereof. The petitioners may make such representation with all material available with them, within a period of two weeks and necessary exercise shall be undertaken by the RPSC within a period of three months thereafter. All the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//