In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. This judgment was delivered by three judge bench comprising hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi at Supreme Court in the matter of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. [C.A. No. 3649-3650 of 2020].
The appellant in the present appeal alleged that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement for the purpose of selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers for subjects like Hindi, English, Social Science, Mathematics and Sanskrit. The exam was conducted in written mode for 2 days. Later, after the exam, the RPSC issued the first answer key and declared the result. When the result was declared, the petitioner’s names were there in the selection list but the petitioner made few mistakes in the form where they were supposed to fill their details, they couldn’t be appointed.
The matter first went to a Single Judge bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. An Expert Committee constituted by the RPSC revised the Key Answers for 2 questions in Social Science and 1 question in General Knowledge. The names of the Petitioners were not included in the revised Merit List. The judgment dated 05.05.2018 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by which 8 questions were referred to the Expert Committee for reconsideration was the subject matter of appeal before a Division bench of the High Court. The High Court examined the correctness of the disputed questions by itself and came to a conclusion that the answers to 5 questions were wrong. After being informed that the results have been announced and the selection process was completed, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018 directed revision of the Select List and give benefit of the revision only to the Appellants before the Court.
On 13.03.2019, a direction was issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench that the names of the ineligible candidates should be deleted from the Select List and a revised Select List shall be issued. The 3rd Answer Key was published by the RPSC on 08.04.2019 but the benefit of the said revision was given only to the Appellants in the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench on 13.03.2019 was implemented and the Select List was revised on 21.05.2019 by excluding ineligible candidates. The names of 124 candidates were included in the said revised Select List which was prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. A Waiting List was prepared on 22.05.2019 by the RPSC, again on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. 5.
The hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the Select List dated 21.05.2019 and the wait list dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of the 2nd answer key, stated that A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants-therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are dismissed.
