RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. BHANWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'Commission'), has preferred this Special Appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd of March 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned verdict has disproved the scaling method and moderation technique pressed into service by the Commission for evaluating descriptive answer books for Rajasthan Administrative Services (Main) Examination 2012 (for short, 'Examination 2012'). Allowing the writ petition with certain disparaging remarks about functioning of the Commission, the writ Court has done away with scaling method and moderation technique and directed it to prepare result of Examination 2012 afresh on the basis of raw-marks obtained by the candidates.

(2.) Facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are recapitulated in chronological order as under:

(3.) The writ petition was contested by the Commission. In its reply, the appellant-Commission has submitted that increase in the number of vacancies was a just decision of the Commission as it received intimation from the Government in this behalf and proviso to Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules 1999 (for short, 'Rules of 1999') clearly envisage that before declaration of result for Preliminary Examination vacancies can be increased or decreased. While joining the issue with the respondent in adopting the moderation technique and scaling method, the Commission has defended its action by relying on Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 2 WLC(Raj) 46. Refuting the positive assertion of the respondent that he was expecting better marks in the Examination 2012, Commission has submitted that self assessment of a candidate is not conclusive and for adjudging performance of an examinee, examiner is the best Judge. Appellant- Commission also stated in the reply that although respondentpetitioner has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court but there is no material particular about the aforesaid judgment. On the issue of non-disclosure of raw-marks secured by an individual, Commission has categorically averred in the return that raw-marks are disclosed and available on the website of the Commission.