MR - Prahlad Singh Vs Mr.A.K.Sharma On 6 October, 2015 PDF

Mr.Prahlad Singh vs Mr.A.K.
Sharma on 6 October, 2015
Rajasthan High Court

Mr.Prahlad Singh vs Mr.A.K.Sharma on 6 October, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12277/2015. 18. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13038/

17. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13125/2015.
Judgment reserved on : 29th September, 2015.

Date of Judgment : 6th October, 2015.
PRESENT
REPORTABLE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS:

Mr.Prahlad Singh, Mr.Tanveer Ahmed, Mr.S.K.Jindal, Mr.Amit Jindal, Mr.A.S.Shekhawat, Mr.S.N.Kum
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:

Mr.A.K.Sharma, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Vishnukant Sharma Mr.Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel as
*****
BY THE COURT (Per Honble Mr.Ajay Rastogi,J):
Instant batch of writ petitions have been filed by the candidates who had participated in the
Preliminary Examination held by the respondents, pursuant to Notification dt.26.04.2015 holding
recruitment in Civil Judge Cadre, the post which is included in the Schedule appended to the
Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (in short the Rules, 2010).
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 1

In fact, the petitioners have challenged the final answer key of certain questions dt.20.08.2015 of
the Preliminary Examination held for recruitment in Civil Judge Cadre, 2015 conducted by the
respondents and their grievance, in totality, is in respect of the multiple choice answers of 10
questions i.e. 7 questions in Law Subject; 2 in English Subject; & 1 in Hindi Subject and it has been
prayed that either the model answer may be restored or all the four multiple choice answers are
incorrect or the answer proposed by the Expert Committee is not correct and prayed that while
accepting their contentions result be revised & direct the respondents to declare the result afresh.
We have noticed the rival versions, portraiting the relevant facts having regard to the identicalness
in the challenge, from D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12277/2015 & 13543/2015.
As adverted to hereinabove, an advertisement dt.26.04.2015 came to be notified by the respondents

on its official website inviting on-line application forms from the eligible candidates for recruitment
to 105 posts in the Civil Judge Cadre, 2015, which is included in the Schedule appended to the Rules,
2010. As per the scheme of Rules, 2010 and the terms of advertisement, the examination scheme for
the recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge consists of: (i) Preliminary Examination (Objective
Type); (ii) Written Main Examination (Subjective Type); & (iii) Interview. The competitive
examination for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge is conducted in two stages i.e. Preliminary
Examination & Main Examination and 15 times the number of vacancies (category-wise) are
declared qualified in the Preliminary Examination and admitted to the Main Examination and all
those candidates who secure the same percentage of marks on the last cut-off are also admitted to
the Main Examination. The Preliminary Examination for 105 posts of Civil Judge & Judicial
Magistrate was conducted on 05.07.2015 and all the candidates who appeared in the Preliminary
Examination were allotted the question papers in four series i.e. Series A, B, C & D and the number
of questions in each series was 100 and the maximum marks were 100.
On the next very day of the Preliminary Examination being held i.e. on 06.07.2015, the model
answer key was uploaded for inviting objections till 15.07.2015 and it was specifically mentioned
that no objections thereafter would be entertained. It is stated by the respondents in their reply that
in response thereto, the respondents received objections against 73 model answers and out of total
73 questions, 52 were pertaining to Law subject; 11 were pertaining to English subject; & 10 were
pertaining to Hindi subject. It is further stated that all the objections were placed by the respondents
before an Expert Committee including subject Experts i.e. Law, English & Hindi and the Expert
Committee after due deliberations prepare three separate reports i.e. for Law, English and Hindi
subjects. The Expert Committee, after meticulous examination, gave its report, details whereof will
be referred to at a later stage and unanimously sustained the objections by changing option of four
questions viz.:-
1. Question No.A-11/B-22/C-26/D-33

4. Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 Apart from it, in respect of two questions i.e. Question
No.A-28/B-4/C-8/D-15 and Question No.A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100, it was proposed to delete or to
take appropriate decision which may be in the interest of the examinees and at the same time all
other objections pertaining to other questions were rejected and after accepting report of the Expert
Committee, the respondents vide notice dt.20.08.2015 uploaded the final answer key on its official
website and declared the result of Preliminary Examination on its website on 20.08.2015
simultaneously and the final cut-off marks category-wise are ad infra:-
Cut-Off Marks Category Cut off marks Male Female GENERAL OBC SC ST Since the Expert
Committees report was accepted in toto and as it was suggested to delete two question, the result
was declared on the basis of marks awarded for 98 questions and since the present petitioners did
not qualify and find place in the short-listed candidates qualified to appear in the Main Examination
which is scheduled to be held on 10/11 October, 2015, they have approached this court by filing of
the instant batch of writ petitions and their grievance is that the answers of few questions
mentioned in the writ petitions are either not correct or what is being suggested by the Expert
Committee is not supported by the tangible evidence on record and some of the candidates have
raised objections that neither the model answers nor the answers proposed by the Expert
Committee are right answers and have tried to persuade that in few of the multiple choice answers,
the third available answer which was neither suggested by the paper setters nor by the Expert
Committee are the correct answers which according to them have been attempted & each of them
have prayed that to correct/revise the multiple choice answers as prayed and result accordingly may
be revised afresh of Preliminary Examination, which has been uploaded by the respondents on
20.08.2015. It may be relevant to note that either of the petitioner has not challenged the report
submitted by the Expert Committee and at the same time there is no allegation of arbitrariness or
malafides against members of Expert Committee which may call upon for judicial review to
reconsider the report of the Expert Committee.
The grievance was raised by counsel for petitioners jointly in respect to all the nine questions. The
submission of counsel for petitioners' is that as regards Question No.A-10/B-21/C-25/D-32, model
answer was (4) and their objection has been found untenable and rejected by the Expert Committee
but their emphasis is that option No.3 i.e. Bailee, was the right answer and in respect thereof their
submission is that according to Sec.71 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a finder of lost goods obtains
the custody of goods, is liable as Bailee (Option No.3) is the right answer and rightly attempted by
the petitioners and in respect thereof they placed reliance on Pollock & Mulla Indian Contract &
Specific Relief Acts Volume-II, Chapter-IX Bailment and also supported the judgment of Apex Court
reported in AIR 1960 SC 233, AIR 1967 SC 1885 & AIR 1981 SC 1982.
Counsel for petitioners jointly submit that so far as Question No.A-43/B-50/C-61/D-68 is

concerned, the model answer was (4) which was seriously objected by the candidates and their
emphasis is that Option No.2 is the right answer and that has been rightly attempted by the
petitioners but without any justification, the respondents in the model answer key declared Option
No.4 as correct answer and the Expert Committee while examining the objections raised by the
examinees, sustained the option (3) as the correct answer which according to the petitioners is also
wrong and erroneous. Their submission is that u/Sec.101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 burden of

proof never shifts, but lies on the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of
proof shifts and according to them the model answer declared on the basis of report of Expert
Committee & finally accepted by the respondents is contrary to the principles of law of evidence and
in this regard placed reliance upon the book called Field's Commentary on Law of Evidence Vol-4,
Chapter-VII and also supported judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1949 PC 278, AIR 1961
SC 1474 & AIR 1981 SC 1186.
Counsel for petitioners jointly stressed on another Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 for which the
model answer was (3) which was impeached by only 29 examinees on the basis that after the
amendment u/Sec.53 of the Indian Penal Code, third punishment was deleted and the total
punishments which were provided after taking note of the amendment made was only 5 and this
was an apparent error being committed even by the Expert Committee while notifying model answer
(1) as correct answer.
For other questions also, similar objections have been raised by the petitioners that in some of the
multiple choice answers the approved and authoritative books on the subject have not been taken
note of by the respondents neither when the model answer key was uploaded nor by the Expert
Committee and further submits that if the Expert Committee failed to pay any heed for their
inaction, the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates who appeared in the Preliminary
Examination have been deprived from participating in the selection process to appear in the Main
Examination which is scheduled to be held on 10/11 October, 2015.
That further bone of contention of candidates, who remained unsuccessful in the Preliminary
Examination have tried to demonstrate that in other large number of questions for which either
wrong answers were indicated in the model answer key or option was changed on the basis of report
of Expert Committee but in support no tangible evidence has been assigned by the Expert
Committee in its report much less logical reasons to change the model answer key of Preliminary
Examination uploaded on 06.07.2015 or the model answers itself were erroneous, which have not
been properly looked into by the Expert Committee despite objections raised and it is prayed that
the model key answer or the final answer key of some of the questions be re-examined by an
independent agency and the answers given by the students/candidates be reevaluated, which is in
paramount interest of the overall candidates who have participated in the process and when merit
alone is the touchstone for qualifying the candidates to participate in the Main Examination, at least
the merit should not suffer in such competitive process of selection and as regards the relevant
questions for which emphasis has been made by the writ petitioners, we will take note of the same in
the later part of the order.
The respondent in their reply has averred that the process was initiated pursuant to the
advertisement dt.26.04.2015 holding recruitment to 105 posts of Civil Judge Cadre, 2015 under the
Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 and as per the scheme of Examination for recruitment to the
cadre of Civil Judge, it consists of (i) Preliminary Examination (Objective Type); (ii) Written Main
Examination (Subjective Type); and followed by (iii) Interview. The Preliminary Examination was
held on 05.07.2015 and the candidates were allotted the questions papers of four series i.e. Series A,
B, C & D of multiple choice of 100 questions and the maximum marks were 100 and the model

answer key was uploaded on its website on 06.07.2015 inviting objections till 15.07.2015 and in all
objections were received against 73 multiple choice model answers which were duly compiled and
placed before the Expert Committee and as per the report submitted by the Expert Committee,
which was accepted in toto, the model answers of four questions were revised and two questions, as
suggested, were deleted and accordingly, the final result was declared on the basis of marks awarded
for 98 questions of Preliminary Examination held on 05.07.2015 and those who have qualified in the
Preliminary Examination and falling within 15 times of the number of vacancies (category-wise), are
declared qualified to admit in the Main Examination scheduled to be held on 10/11 October, 2015 as
per the scheme of Rules, 2010.
Counsel for the respondents submits that the Preliminary Examination has been held under the
scheme of Rules, 2010 and after the model answer key was uploaded, objections were invited which
are referred to the Expert Committee in detail and after acceptance of the opinion of Experts,
further decision has been taken and in absence of there being any challenge to the Expert
Committees report, or any allegation of arbitrariness or malafides against the Experts, it is beyond
the realm of judicial review and this court may not like to sit as court of appeal over the
recommendations made by the Expert Committee in its report adjudging as to whether what is
being proposed by the petitioners, based upon the recognized & authoritative text books, or the
judgments of court, can be made a basis to change the final answer key which is the source for
declaration of final result of Preliminary Examination on 20.08.2015. Counsel further submits that
the petitioners are not able to show any patent error in directing the objections to be referred to the
Expert Committee and there appears no justification in the contention advanced by the petitioners
and the petitions are wholly without substance and deserves no indulgence of this court.
We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material placed on
record.
Before we may proceed to take note of the rival submissions, we consider it appropriate to refer
from the written statement filed by the respondent to first take note of the relevant questions which
are under consideration and what is being opined by the Expert Committee in its report with which
we are presently concerned in the instant batch of writ petitions and such of the questioned
impugned in this batch of writ petitions are summarized ad infra:-
"QUESTIONS/ANSWERS OF LAW SUBJECT Ques.No. : A/10 B/21 C/25 D/32 :
Finder of lost goods under Indian Contract Act,1872 is a;-
(1) bailor (2) surety (3) bailee (4) none of the above There were in all 387 objections pertaining to
this question and all the objectors had disputed the model answer, which is (4), by asserting that
correct answer is (3). All the objections were based on misconstruction of Section 71 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872. As a matter of fact, Section 71 nowhere envisages that status of finder of lost
goods is akin to that of baillee as it simply envisages that he is subject to the same responsibilities as
a bailee. The definition of 'bailee' under Section 148 of the Act is clear and unambiguous. According
to Section 148, 'bailment' is delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a

contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of
according to the directions of the person delivered them. The person delivering the goods is called
the 'bailor'. The person to whom they are delivered is called 'bailee'. As such, a finder of lost goods
cannot be a 'bailee' and the model answer (4) is correct. Therefore, all the objections were untenable
and rejected.
Ques.No. : A/43 B/50 C/61 D/68 :
Burden of proof under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:-
(1) goes on shifting as the trial proceeds (2) never shifts (3) may shift (4) both (1) and (3) are correct
The model answer (4) was impeached by as many as 273 examinees by submitting their objections.
All the objectors had seriously doubted the model answer (4) and had proposed different answers.
The Committee had made sincere endeavour to scrutinize objections on the touchstone of Section
101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 101 of the Act under the caption "burden of proof" says
"Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to
prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." The very
edifice of the Section is based on rule, ei incumit probation qui decit, non-quit negat, which means
burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and
not upon the party who denies it; for a negative is usually incapable of proof. The doctrine of burden
of proof is further elaborated in following maxims :
Affirmatis est probare He who affirms must prove.
Affaimanti non neganti incumbit Probation The burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not
upon one who denies.
The cumulative effect of these two maxims is to the effect that the person who affirms should prove
it.
After analyzing the objections objectively, the unanimous view of the Committee was that the model
answer (4) is not free from doubts. There remains no quarrel that answer (3) is correct that burden
of proof may shift, however, answer (1) "goes on shifting as the trial proceeds", is per-se not an
acceptable proposition as the question is confined to interpret Section 101 of the Act only. Therefore,
answer (1) was seriously doubtful and had obviously casted shadow on the model answer, i.e. answer
(4). A plain reading of Section 101 makes it amply clear that answer (1) is against the basic tenets of
the legislative intent. It has been seen that burden of proof may be shifted by irrebuttable
presumption of law but burden can also be shifted by evidence raising a prima facie case. It is also
noticed in some of the cases that burden to prove may be shifted on either side by proof of facts
giving rise to a presumption in favour of a party. In such a situation, during the course of trial, there
are chances of shifting of the onus and as such the correct answer is that burden may shift, i.e.
answer (3). Therefore, in totality, all the Members of the Committee were unanimous that this
question need to be addressed in the interest of examinees and their objections were sustained as

answer (3) is the correct answer.
Ques.No. : A/67 B/39 C/50 D/57 :
How many kinds of punishment are provided in section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?
(1) Six (2) Four (3) Five (4) Seven Against model answer (3), there were in all 29 objections. Most of
the objections were harping on answer (1), i.e. under Section 53 IPC six punishments are provided.
The model answer (3) denotes five punishments. The Committee made sincere endeavour to
examine all the objections in light of Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 53 is reproduced
hereunder:
53. Punishments.- The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code
are -
First Death;
Secondly. - Imprisonment for life [* * * * *] Fourthly.Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions,

namely :-
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
(2) Simple;
Fifthly. Forfeiture of property;
Sixthly Fine.
Though 3rd punishment is deleted but then 4th punishment is segregated into two parts, viz.,
rigorous i.e. with hard labour, and simple. Therefore, the imprisonment provided is of two
descriptions which are rigorous and simple. The nature of rigorous imprisonment and simple
imprisonment are different and as such these two are to be treated as two different punishments. In
that background, there remains no shadow of doubt that Section 53 postulates six punishments and
not five. Therefore, in the unanimous view of the Committee the model answer (3) needed to be
treated as wrong and amendment or corrigendum was required to be issued for notifying answer (1)
as correct answer.
Ques.No. : A/28 - B/4 C/8 D/15 :
Which of the following is incorrect ?
(1) The husband is the natural guardian of a Hindu married girl (2) After the adoption of Hindu
minor son, his father continues to remain his natural guardian till he attains majority (3) The
natural guardian of a Hindu minor child is the father, and after him the mother, but custody of

minor upto the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother (4) The natural guardian of an
illegitimate Hindu minor boy is the mother and after her, the father This question in the considered
opinion of the Committee was contentious and required threadbare discussion. After examining the
question in the backdrop of the legislative intent and the provisions contained under the Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, the Committee felt that 4 out of 7 objections were concerning the
correctness of the question. The model answer was (2). In the considered opinion of the Committee
while framing the question and giving the first option, inadvertently, the word 'minor' had been
omitted before the words "Hindu married girl". As such, if a Hindu Married girl is major, her
husband cannot be her natural guardian. Section 6 of the Act of 1956 defines natural guardian of
Hindu minor and under clause (c) the husband of a married girl is shown as her natural guardian.
This sort of situation pre-supposes that married girl is minor and this clause is not applicable when
married girl has attained majority. The very nomenclature of the Act suggests in clear and
unequivocal terms that guardian is required for a minor. Therefore, omission to mention 'minor'
prior to Hindu married girl in answer (1) had rendered this option to be an incorrect answer, or
atleast it had created some suspicion or doubt in the mind of examinee about correctness of this
option. After analyzing the objections objectively, the Committee was of the unanimous opinion that
objections be sustained and proposed that either the question itself be deleted or any other
appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees.
Ques.No. : A/11 B/22 - C/26 D/33 :
Under Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012, a complaint can be filed regarding grievance relating
to :-
(1)the service matters of a public servant (2)any matter in which any Court or Tribunal has
jurisdiction (3)any matter under Right to Information Act, 2005 (4)none of the above Pertaining to
this question, in all 9 objections were submitted doubting model answer (4). Some of the objectors
had also taken shelter of the Rajasthan Right to Hearing (Amendment) Act, 2014, which has
received assent of Government on 26th day of February 2014 and has also been published in the
Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 26th February 2014. As per the amendment Act of 2014
definition of complaint envisaged under Section 2(a) is amended by deleting the words "relating to
any matter under Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act No.22 of 2005) or services notified
under the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011 (Act No.23 of 2011)" While
deleting the aforesaid words by amendment, it is inserted "or relating to any appeal pending before
a quasi-judicial authority". The objections submitted by some of the incumbents by relying on the
amendment Act of 2014 deserved appreciation. In that background, even if appellate authority
under Right to Information Act is being treated as quasi judicial authority, the incument can very
well lodge a complaint under the Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act when his application for soliciting
requisite information is pending before the Information Officer, i.e. before the competent authority
empowered to divulge the information on behalf of the department. Therefore, in totality, after
amendment Act of 2014, model answer was under serious clouds and to a great extent answer (3) is
correct insofar as it relates to Information Act before the Information Officer i.e. competent
authority on behalf of department to divulge and information. After threadbare discussion, in the
unanimous opinion of the Committee, model answer needed to be addressed and corrigendum for

amendment for notifying model answer as Answer (3) was required to be issued.
Ques.No. : A/14 B/25 C/29 - D/1 :
Which of the following is correct statement in so far as Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, is concerned ?
(1) The suit has to be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it (2) The suit has
to be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and
voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain (3) The suit has to be
instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in
part arises (4) All the above are correct As regards this question, an many as 134 objections were
submitted doubting the model answer, which is (4). The objectors had proposed different answers.
In the considered opinion of Committee, the very edifice of the objection was misconceived. As a
matter of fact, Chapter under the caption "Place of Suing" in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 starts
from Section 15 and concludes at Section 25. A bare reading of Section 20 ipso facto reveals that it is
a residuary provision and cannot be read and construed in isolation to Sections anterior to the same
under the caption "Place of Suing". The Section starts with "Subject to limitations aforesaid, every
suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction". Therefore, the very
opening words of the Section pre-supposes that the provisions incorporated under Section 15 to 19
are to be read in conjunction with Section 20 and not in isolation to Section 20 and the right answer
is to be ascertained on harmonious construction of all the Sections. In that background, model
answer, i.e. option (4), mentioned in the model answer key is right answer, which the Committee
accepted without any demur and the objections were overruled.
Ques.No. : A/30 B/6 C/10 - D/17 :
As per Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, "respondent"
means and includes :-
(1) any person, who is in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the
aggrieved person has sought relief under the Act (2) male partner when aggrieved female is living in
a relationship with him in the nature of a marriage (3) the female relatives of the husband of the
aggrieved wife, seeking their removal from the shared household (4) none of the above Pertaining to
this question, against model answer (2), in all 226 objections were submitted by various examinees
questioning the correctness of the model answer. Almost all the objections were based on Section
2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For substantiating their
objections, some of the objectors had placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. [(2011) 3 SCC 650]. Hon'ble Apex Court
in the said verdict, while interpreting proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act has thoroughly examined the
expression "relative" and has observed :
"No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression "relative", nor has the said expression been
specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only. In such

circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the
husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
In view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court, the answer (1) is correct and model
answer (2) was under cloud. In substance, the objections were sustainable. So far as answer (3) is
concerned, the same is also not a correct answer by virtue of proviso to Section 19 of the Act.
Therefore, in light of the legal provisions as interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the model
answer deserved to be changed by issuing necessary amendment or corrigendum in the model
answer sheet.
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS OF ENGLISH SUBJECT That meeting of the Expert Committe Comprising

of Two Honble Judges and One Subject Expert was held on 01.08.2015 for considering the
objections raised by candidates regarding the answers given in Model Answers Key uploaded by the
Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court relating to questions of English subject. The opinion of the
Committee pertaining to 2 questions impugned in these petition is summarized as infra :
Ques.No. : A/89 B/93 C/98 D/100 :
Choose the word opposite in the meaning to the word:
ARBITRARY (1) Dictatorial (2) Autocratic (3) High handed (4) Mathodical Sixty one persons had
raised objection regarding this question. Six out of sixty one had suggested option 2 as the correct
answer, while eight had mentioned that all the answers were wrong. The remaining objectors had
mentioned that answer to this question was option 4 "Mathodical" but the spelling of the Mathodical
was wrong. In view of the Expert Committee, Model Answer (4) was itself incorrect. None of the four
options provided in the answer key were antonyms of the word Arbitrary. Antonym of Arbitrary are
Rational, Reasonable, Democratic, Accountable but Methodical cannot be antonym of Arbitrary.
Antonyms of Mehodical are careless, inefficient, unscrupulous, chaotic, negligent, unsystematic,
disorderly, thoughtless, disorganized, unmethodical. Hence, there is no correct answer to this
question in the answer key and objections of 8 persons who had suggested that all options are wrong
were worth acceptance.
Ques.No. : A/95 B/99 C/89 D/91 :
Note: In the next two questions mark the correct passive voice of the given sentence.
Someone gave her a bulldog (1) She was given a bulldog.
(2) A bulldog was given to her by someone.
(3) She has been given a bulldog.
(4) She is being given a bulldog by someone.

Eighty Four persons had raised objection regarding this question. Option No.2 was shown to be the
correct answer in model answer key, out of these eighty four, one had suggested option 4 as the
correct answer, eight had suggested options 1 & 2 as the correct answer and the remaining had
suggested option 1 as the correct answer. In view of the Committee the answer provided in the
model answer key is correct. The conversion of Simple Past Sentences into Passive Voice is as
follows :
Object + was/were + verb 3 + by doer.
Hence, the objection/s regarding this question were not tenable and the same were rejected.
QUESTION/ANSWER OF HINDI SUBJECT It is submitted that meeting of the Expert Committe

comprising of Two Honble Judges and One Subject Expert was also held on 01.08.2015 to consider
the objections raised by candidates regarding the answers given in Model Answers Key uploaded by
the Examination Cell, Rajasthan High Court relating to questions of Hindi subject. The opinion of
the Committee pertaining to 1 question impugned in these petition is summarized as infra :
Ques.No. : A/80 - B/83 C/72 - D/76 :
??? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??, ??? ???? ???? ???:-
(1) ?????????
(2) ????? ?????????
(3) ???????
(4) ????????
In this regard as many as 143 objections were received by the respondents. Two objectors had said
that all the options were wrong whereas one had stated that the question itself was wrong. One
objector had suggested option no. 4 to be correct. All other had suggested option no. 3 to be correct.
In support of their objections they had produced various Text books. The Committee considered the
objections and opined as under:-
"????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? "?????????" ?? ?????? ??????????
???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????
???? ??? ???? "???????" ?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ??????????
??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? 1 ?? ??? ????? ??? ??: ?????????
??????? ????? ???? ???"
8. Thus, from the facts stated hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that all the objections were
disposed of by the Hon'ble Expert Comittee after meticulous examination. The Committee
unanimously sustained the objections by changing option of four questions namely

1.Question No.A-11/B-22/C-26/D-33
4.Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 Whereas in respect of two questions i.e. Question No.

A-28/B-4/C-8/D-15 and Question No. A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100 it was proposed to delete them or
any other appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees. Rest of the objections
pertaining to other questions were rejected."
The recommendations of the Expert Committee were accepted in toto by the respondent and
accordingly two questions, as proposed, were deleted and after revising the model answers of four
questions, in terms of report of the Expert Committee, the final answer key was uploaded on the
official website of the respondents and the result of the Preliminary Examination was declared on
20.08.2015 on the basis of marks awarded for 98 questions and the final cut-off marks
category-wise are ad infra:-
Cut-Off Marks Category Cut off marks Male Female GENERAL OBC SC ST As being evident from
the comments of the Expert Committee vis--vis Question No.A-10/B-21/C-25/D-32 the model
answer was (4) and there were in all 387 objections raised asserting that correct answer is (3) but
after examining the relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act, all the objections were found
untenable and accordingly rejected. The detailed comments of the Expert Committee indicate that
the Expert Committee supported the model answer proposed by the paper setters.
In reference to Question No.A-43/B-50/C-61/D-68, the model answer was (4) which was impeached
by as many as 273 examinees by submitting their objections and the Expert Committee after due
deliberations, analysis the objections and taking note of the provisions of relevant Act sustained the
objection raised by the examinees and proposed the answer (3) as correct answer.
In regard to Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57, as against model answer (3), there were in all 29
objections received by the respondent and the Expert Committee after examining the scheme of
kinds of punishments provided u/Sec.53 IPC, while accepting the objections proposed the answer
(1) as correct answer.
In reference to Question No.A-28/B-4/C-8/D-15, the model answer was (2) and the Expert
Committee, after analyzing the objections raised, opined that the objections deserve to be sustained
and looking to the ambiguity in the answer has proposed either to delete the question or take any
other appropriate decision in the interest of examinees.
In regard to Question No.A-11/B-22/C-26/D-33 the model answer was (4) and in all 9 objections
were received by the respondent and after examining objections, the Expert Committee
unanimously in its opinion proposed that answer (3) was correct answer.

As regards Question No.A-14/B-25/C-29/D-1, there were 134 objections submitted doubting the
model answer (4) and the Expert Committee after examining all the objections in detail and after
due deliberation and taking note of the relevant provisions of the Code finally observed that all the
objections were not sustainable and finally approved the answer (4) mentioned in the model answer
key.
In regard to Question No.A-30/B-6/C-10/D-17 the model answer was (2) and in all 226 objections
were submitted by various examinees and the Expert Committee, after thoroughly examining all the
objections and taking note of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court as well finally
proposed that the answer (1) was correct answer.
In the language paper of English, there were objections raised by the examinees regarding two
questions and the meeting of Expert Committee inclusive of one subject expert was held on
01.08.2015.
In regard to Question No.A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100 in all 61 examinees raised objections as against

the model answer (4) and the Expert Committee after taking note of all the objections was of the
view that spelling of Mathodical [Answer (4)] was wrong and finally after extensive deliberation was
of the view that no answer could be said to be correct out of the four options and suggested that all
the options are wrong and left it open for the authority to take decision & finally the decision was
taken to delete the Question No.A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100.
As regards another question of English Subject i.e. Question No.A-95/B-99/C-89/D-91 in all 84

objections were received by the respondent and the model answer was (2). However, out of 84
objections, someone has suggested option (4) as the correct answer, eight persons suggested options
(1) & (2) as the correct answer and the remaining examinees suggested option (1) as the correct
answer. The Expert Committee, after taking into consideration the relevant books on the subject
approved the model answer (2) and accordingly rejected all the objections raised by the examinees.
In regard to Hindi Subject, the meeting of the Expert Committee inclusive of one subject expert was
also held on 01.08.2015 to consider Question No.A-80/B-83/C-72/D-76 and in all 143 objections
were received by the respondent as against the model answer (1) and the Expert Committee after
due deliberation approved the model answer (1) as correct answer and rejected all the objections.
The Expert Committee unanimously sustained the objections by changing option of following four
questions:-
4. Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 The Expert Committee advised either to delete the two
questions, as proposed or any other appropriate decision be taken in the interest of examinees &

after acceptance of recommendations of the Expert Committee, change has been given effect to the
four questions and two questions were deleted and accordingly final answer key was uploaded on
the official website on 20.08.2015 and result was accordingly declared.
Indisputably, in the instant batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have neither challenged the
report of Expert Committee nor they have alleged any arbitrariness or malafides against the Experts
of the Committee. On appraisal of the recommendations of the Expert Committee, qua these
questions as well as the texts and the contemporaneous authoritative references relied upon, we are
unable to persuade ourselves to conclude that the same can be faulted with.
It is true that in the system of Multiple Choice Objective-type Test care must be taken to see that
questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers and that kind of system of
examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer and it leaves no scope for
reasoning or argument. The answer is yes or no and that is why the questions have to be clear and
unequivocal and if the attention is drawn to any defect in a model key answer or any ambiguity in a
question, set in the examination, it is always advisable to take a prompt and timely decision before
declaring the final result of the Examination to rule out all the errors & possibilities as far as
possible.
The law is clear that if there is a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it
could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for the petitioners only, thus,
no interference is required.
This has also been settled by the Apex Court that in academic matters, the court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own view in preference to those formulated by professional persons
possessing expertise and rich experience on the subject and the opinion of the Experts ordinarily
cannot be made the subject of judicial scrutiny simply because some authors expressed their views
differently in their books or articles on the subject. Interference by the Court in such matters should
be in rare and exceptional circumstances, if it is found beyond the realm of doubt that key answer
published by the expert is incorrect. At the same time, even if in case there is doubt as to which of
the answer is correct then too answer as accepted by the subject expert should be given preference
and adhered to. This is necessary to keep the whole system of examination workable and intact and
this Court always endeavor to see that examination system is not rendered unworkable by creating
doubts and uncertainties.
The views and recommendations of a Committee of Experts demand due deference and cannote
finality, in absence of bias or malafide, is an unassailable proposition consistently laid, time out of
number. The Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh & Ors reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372
observed in para 21 ad infra:-
21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the
instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the
appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointment were made. The Division Bench

of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the
country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.
The Apex Court in Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K.Santhosh & Ors. reported in 2012 (12) SCC 106 further
sounded the concordant note in the following terms:-
20. It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of

qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the
opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts
who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation
of mala fides against the three experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of
the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of selection of
this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. In the
case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant
herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products,
hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High
Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee.
On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:-
(1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong; (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of
inferential process or process of rationalization; (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong; (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject
would regard as correct; (5) the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by the
academic experts; (6) when there is no discrimination in awarding the marks and effective of alleged
wrong answer is equally on all the candidates, no interference is warranted; (7) writ Court cannot sit
in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion
as a Court of appeal.
It is clear that in a matter of appointment selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of

qualified persons of their particular field, the courts should always be slow to interfere with the
opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is an allegation of malafides against the experts who
had constituted the Expert Committee.
Indisputably, in the case on hand, there is neither allegation of biasness or malafides against the
members of members of Expert Committee nor challenge to the report of the Expert Committee and
in such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to
leave the decision of this nature to the Experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature
of work.
In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the Multiple Choice Objective-type model
answers and after due deliberation and looking into the objections extensively, of which we have
already made reference, and finally arrived to its conclusion that two questions deserves to be

deleted and model answers of four questions are required to be changed. The report of Expert
Committee has been accepted in toto by the respondents and accordingly final answer key was
uploaded on the official website of the respondents on 20.08.2015 and result was declared of all the
candidates who have participated in the Preliminary Examination held for the Civil Judge Cadre,
pursuant to the Notification dt.26.04.2015, in terms of Rules, 2010.
The views expressed by the Expert Committee, in the case on hand, vis--vis the disputed
questions/answer key, as has been dilated hereinabove, in our estimate, ought to be accorded due
paramountcy and no allegation of bias or malafide or extraneous consideration for collateral
objectives has been levelled, and rightly. In the overall factual background and the noted litigational
events encompassing the same recruitment process with strikingly common orientations, we are of
the unhesitant opinion that the impeachment of the writ petitioners of the final answer key
uploaded by the respondent on 20.08.2015 and final declaration of result of Preliminary
Examination on 20.08.2015, on any count, does not merit acceptance.
In the wake of the above, we are thus of the opinion that the impeachment of the process of holding
Preliminary Examination of Civil Judge, 2015 on the counts, as canvassed before us in the present
batch of writ petition, is not sustainable in law.
Consequently, the instant batch of writ petitions is without substance and accordingly stands
dismissed. No costs.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
All corrections made in judgment/order have been

incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

MR - Prahlad Singh Vs Mr.A.K.Sharma On 6 October, 2015 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MR - Prahlad Singh Vs Mr.A.K.Sharma On 6 October, 2015 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mr.Prahlad Singh vs Mr.A.K.

Sharma on 6 October, 2015

Rajasthan High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

1. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12277/2015. 18. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13038/

Judgment reserved on : 29th September, 2015.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS:

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS:

BY THE COURT (Per Honble Mr.Ajay Rastogi,J):

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 1

As adverted to hereinabove, an advertisement dt.26.04.2015 came to be notified by the respondents

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 2

Counsel for petitioners jointly submit that so far as Question No.A-43/B-50/C-61/D-68 is

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 3

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 4

"QUESTIONS/ANSWERS OF LAW SUBJECT Ques.No. : A/10 B/21 C/25 D/32 :

Finder of lost goods under Indian Contract Act,1872 is a;-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 5

Ques.No. : A/43 B/50 C/61 D/68 :

Affirmatis est probare He who affirms must prove.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 6

answer (3) is the correct answer.

Ques.No. : A/67 B/39 C/50 D/57 :

Secondly. - Imprisonment for life [* * * * *] Fourthly.Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions,

(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;

Fifthly. Forfeiture of property;

Ques.No. : A/28 - B/4 C/8 D/15 :

Which of the following is incorrect ?

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 7

Ques.No. : A/11 B/22 - C/26 D/33 :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 8

Ques.No. : A/14 B/25 C/29 - D/1 :

Ques.No. : A/30 B/6 C/10 - D/17 :

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 9

QUESTIONS/ANSWERS OF ENGLISH SUBJECT That meeting of the Expert Committe Comprising

Ques.No. : A/89 B/93 C/98 D/100 :

Choose the word opposite in the meaning to the word:

Ques.No. : A/95 B/99 C/89 D/91 :

Someone gave her a bulldog (1) She was given a bulldog.

(2) A bulldog was given to her by someone.

(3) She has been given a bulldog.

(4) She is being given a bulldog by someone.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 10

Object + was/were + verb 3 + by doer.

QUESTION/ANSWER OF HINDI SUBJECT It is submitted that meeting of the Expert Committe

Ques.No. : A/80 - B/83 C/72 - D/76 :

(2) ????? ?????????

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 11

4.Question No.A-67/B-39/C-50/D-57 Whereas in respect of two questions i.e. Question No.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 12

In regard to Question No.A-89/B-93/C-98/D-100 in all 61 examinees raised objections as against

As regards another question of English Subject i.e. Question No.A-95/B-99/C-89/D-91 in all 84

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 13

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 14

20. It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of

On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:-

It is clear that in a matter of appointment selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 15

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.

All corrections made in judgment/order have been

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/108162335/ 16

Вам также может понравиться