MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions seek to challenge the selection made by the Board of Revenue for appointment on the post of Land Record Inspector pursuant to advertisement Dt. 17.06.2011. Allegation of petitioners is that the Board conducted written examination for selection to aforesaid posts by inviting applications from amongst 'Patwaris' working under it. Such examination was conducted on 21.04.2013 and result thereof was declared on 16.05.2013. It is alleged that there are large number of inaccuracies in question papers. The examination was divided into two papers i.e. first papers consisted of 50 questions carrying 100 marks and second paper also consisted of 50 questions carrying 100 marks. All the writ petitioners have alleged that there were large number of inaccuracies in the setting of question papers inasmuch as questions were objective type having multiple options as answer and some such options were having more than one correct answer or had no correct answer at all. It so happened because serial numbers of questions was not changed in four different series but the order in which options were placed as answers were changed, in some of which "none of the above" was given as the very first option. This further resulted in lot of inaccuracies. Petitioners have categorized the defects in the question papers in different groups such as; the questions, which were out of syllabus, questions with respect to which the wrong option was given, questions wherefor incorrect options were given, questions which justified grant of bonus marks to the candidates, questions in respect of which bonus marks were wrongly given by the Board, questions wherefor the Board ought to have given bonus marks, which it had failed to give, questions which were rendered defective following decision of the Board to change the answer -key, when they invited objections to the provisional key and issued the revised key which resulted in change of the answers.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that already the Board had referred the matter to Expert Committee when it received the objections in response to provisional key and thereafter revised the final key. If at all there remain other defects or inaccuracies, the petitioners should approach the Board of Revenue, which may consider objections submitted by petitioners with open mind and do the needful as warranted by law.

(3.) IN the circumstances, this Court deem it appropriate to disposed of these writ petitions directing the Board of Revenue to refer all such objections raised by petitioners in reference to various questions in two question papers, referred to above, to an Expert Committee consisting of at -least two Members preferably those having expertize in the field of revenue law, who may have served as its Member in the past within seven days of filing objections alongwith a copy of this order before it. The Experts' Committee may submit their report within fifteen days of entrustment of the task to them. The Board may take final view on receipt of such report within next seven days thereafter. Petitioners shall submit their objections within one week before the Registrar, Board of Revenue, if any.