BHAGWATI SINGH BARETH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Bhagwati Singh Bareth, who appeared in the RJS Competitive Examination of 2008 conducted by the respondent No. 2 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC'). The petitioner, in the writ petition, has prayed that his answer copies of Law Paper I and Law Paper II may be called for and got reexamined by this Court or the respondent RPSC be directed to get the same reevaluated and the petitioner should in the meantime be allowed to be provisionally interviewed.

(2.) Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that performance of the petitioner in the examination of Law Paper I and Law Paper II was very good and therefore he was expecting his selection. When, however, he received mark-sheet he was astonished to know that he has been awarded only 56 marks in Law Paper I and 38 marks in Law Paper II. Apprehension of the petitioner was that his answer copies have not been properly evaluated. The petitioner was confident of getting higher marks because he has been a very meritorious student throughout. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has always secured first division in Secondary, Senior Secondary, B.A. and LL.M. Examinations. The learned Counsel referred to the marks secured by the petitioner in those examinations. If the answer copies of the petitioner are reexamined, he has every hope of getting 20 or more marks extra in both the Law Paper I and Law Paper II. It is contended that the case now set up by the RPSC before this Court that the petitioners' answer copies of above two papers were found having identification marks and therefore they were got reevaluated by expert committee, cannot be accepted as valid. As per the relevant Rules, the respondents could only reduce the marks awarded by the examiner to the extent of 2% and no more. There is no provision for reexamination of the answer copies. Action of the respondents is thus wholly illegal being incompetent. The so-called report of the Special Division of the RPSC, on the basis of which respondent-RPSC decided to get the answer copies of the petitioner reexamined by the committee of experts, was never supplied to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no such procedure prescribed in any of the rules including Rule 19A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules.

(3.) Per contra, Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that reevaluation of the answer copies of the petitioner was correctly made. After reevaluation the petitioner was awarded 58 marks in Law Paper I and in Law Paper II he was awarded 40 marks, and 2 marks in each paper was reduced as per Rules. Even then the petitioner was not selected. The learned Counsel submitted that allegation that answer copies of the petitioner were not correctly evaluated, is totally baseless. Special Division of the RPSC pointed out to the authorities that some of the answer copies of Law Paper I and Law Paper II were having marks of identification thereby candidates could easily have access to the examiner; and therefore the answer copies of all such candidates having identification marks were ordered to be identified. In such exercise, total seven candidates were found to have put such identification marks in their answer copies of certain papers. An Expert committee consisting of three members was set up by the RPSC which was supplied 6+6=12 copies including seven copies bearing marks of identification after concealing marks awarded by the examiners and also by concealing/hiding the actual roll numbers and by putting fictitious roll numbers. The seven answer copies which were having identification marks, also included two answer copies of the petitioner respectively of Law Paper I and Law Paper II, wherein he was originally awarded 77 and 74 marks respectively. The expert committee evaluated the answer copies afresh and then awarded the correct marks to such candidates. It then transpired that award of marks in the identified copies were inflated which were on higher side. The learned Counsel referred to Rule 19A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 to argue that said Rule confers upon the RPSC power to order scrutiny of the marks obtained by a candidate and this can be done by the RPSC on the request of the candidate concerned and also in its own discretion. The Commission is a constitutional body constituted under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It was necessary to do so in order to ensure sanctity and confidentiality of the examination system.