ANANDI LAL KUMAWAT AND ORS. Vs. RPSC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioners sought to argue that originally in the advertisement as also in the syllabus, the respondents notified that there will be 450 marks divided into six subjects and duration of the examination paper would be two and half hours but when the paper was distributed, three hours duration with maximum 100 marks was printed on it. Counsel for the petitioners has also produced on record, the copy of the news item published in the Dainik Bhaskar on 27.2.2012 in which it has been stated that in the examination for the post of Accountant and Jr. Accountant due to misprint of time, there was confusion among candidates and the invigilators informed the candidates that it was misprint and collected answer sheets after two and half hours. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in other examination centres, candidates were allowed three hours, whereas at the centre of petitioners, two and half hours were allowed to attempt the examination paper and the answer sheets were collected by the invigilators accordingly. When pointedly asked, Learned Counsel could not name any of the particular centre. When he was put second query as to which prejudice was caused to the petitioners if all the candidates were allowed to attempt the question paper in two and half hours and if owning to that reason, petitioners failed to attempt some of the questions, he could not give any definite answer, nor there is any categorical pleading in the writ petition that due to reduction of half an hour, petitioners could not attempt few questions.

(2.) IN my considered view, therefore, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioners. The petition is therefore dismissed.