NEWS TODAY- SATURDAY, OCT. 08, 2016.

8oct.png

Advertisements

3,952 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Mayur Kumar Ahari
    Apr 27, 2017 @ 20:32:41

    harish ji mai aapki baat se bilkul sehmat hu.

  2. arorapankaj1968
    Apr 27, 2017 @ 12:12:12

    Sunne m aaya h rpsc supreme court m appealkr rhi h..kisi ko koi idea h..junior accountant ko leke

  3. Harish Vyas
    Apr 27, 2017 @ 10:34:24

    jo mere comment se sahmat ho vo jarur aage forward kre bcz yeh sabhi candidates ke sath justice h jo is bharti se effected h kyoki Ase toh yeh bharti puri nahi ho payegi kyoki is Ivth result se bhot se ase candidates bhi bahar honge jo last III result me select the iske karan vo bhi out honge. so rpsc ko sabhi ka sochte huve sabhi ko samil krna chahiye kyoki yeh candidates bhi deservable h jo rpsc ldc bharti 2013 jinme 36% se kam vale candidates ko bhi deservable mana h toh rpsc ko yeh 200 candidates jo unse more deservable h , samil krna chahiye….

  4. Harish Vyas
    Apr 27, 2017 @ 10:25:27

    rpsc jr acc bharti 2013 m rpsc ko sabhi candidates jo Ist ,IInd and IIIrd result se effected h jo rpsc ki badolat kabhi select huve aur phir unhe unselect kiya gya h , rpsc n unke documents jma krne ke bad unhe unselect kiya h aur ab IVth result isse se bhi kuch candidates bahar honge, yeh un sabhi candidates ke sath anyay h , un sabhi ko post badakar joining deni chahiye jesa ki IINd grade m rpsc n kiya bhi h, kyoki yeh sari mistakes rpsc ki h kyoki In sabhi questions m sabhi candidates ke answer apni apni jagah sahi h. kyoki galti answer dene walo ki nhi question puchne walo ki h, ab rpsc ko un 200 candidates jo is bharti pariksha me select hoker ke unselect hone se aahat h unko bhi samil kiya jana chahiye….
    yeh hi sabhi ke sath justice hoga.

  5. Emitra Sangawas Apna Emitra
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 19:57:05

    RPSC Sr. Teacher GK Group 1 Exam Answer Key 2017 on http://www.rpscblog.in/2017/04/rpsc-sr-teacher-gk-group-1-exam-answer.html

  6. Vinod Kumar Sharma
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 19:07:19

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
    JAIPUR
    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5794 / 2017
    Amita Vyas D/o Shri Gordhan Das Vyas,, Aged About 22 Years,
    E.W.S. 89, Murlidhar Vyas Nagar, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.)
    —-Petitioner
    Versus
    1. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,, Ajmer
    2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,, Ajmer
    —-Respondents
    _____________________________________________________
    For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devvrath Singh
    For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma
    _____________________________________________________
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
    Judgment
    25/04/2017
    The order of even date passed today in Devesh
    Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary, RPSC & Anr., SBCWP
    No.4867/2017 be also read as part of this order.
    In the present petition, challenge is made to Q.Nos. 30
    and 56. So far Q.No.56 is conerned, same has been deleted by
    order of even date passed in the case of Devesh Kumar Sharma
    (supra). So far Q.No.30 is concerned, it will be apposite here to
    reproduce the portion of the order dated 6.4.2017, passed in case
    of Devesh Kumar Sharma (supra), whereby challenge to Q.No.95
    was rejected, by observing as under:-
    “So far challenge to the Question No.95 is concerned,
    the same is to be rejected at the outset. The
    (2 of 3)
    [CW-5794/2017]
    examination was held on 4.10.2016 and answer key
    was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had not
    filed any objection qua Q.No.95. The petitioner
    accepted the answer given by RPSC to Q.No.95 to be
    correct. After revision of result, on 24.2.2016, the
    petitioner stood ousted from the selection process.
    Now the petitioner had approached this court that
    this Court should direct the respondent RPSC to
    examine the answer to Q.No.95.
    This is fourth round of litigation regarding the
    correctness of the answers. The selection/recruitment
    process cannot be an unending process. For the post
    of Jr. Accountant thousands of candidates had
    appeared and after each revision one or another
    candidate shall be dissatisfied and the court cannot
    stand in the way of recruitment and obstruct
    outcome of the recruitment process. The very fact
    that the examination was held on 4.10.2016,
    thereafter various round of litigation regarding
    correctness of answer have concluded, this Court will
    not entertain objections to Question No.95 of the
    petitioner, as at first opportunity, when chance was
    given to file objections, the petitioner had not filed
    the objections to the answer to Q.No.95.
    Furthermore, expert panel has already determined
    the objections.”
    In the present case also, the petitioner had filed no
    objections to the answer key uploaded on 6.10.2016. The
    petitioner accepted the answer given by RPSC in respect of
    Q.No.30 to be correct. After revision of result on 24.2.2017, when
    petitioner was ousted from the selection process, he has
    approached this Court at a belated stage. This Court qua No.95 in
    the case of Devesh Kumar Sharma (supra) has observed that
    selection/recruitment process cannot be an unending process. This
    (3 of 3)
    [CW-5794/2017]
    Court had observed that for the post of Jr. Accountant/TRA,
    thousands of candidates had appeared and after each revision one
    or the another candidate shall be dissatisfied and the court cannot
    stand in the way of recruitment and obstruct outcome of the
    recruitment process. The very fact that the petitioner had not filed
    objections, at the earliest, the answer to Q.No.30, at this stage cannot
    be made subject matter of challenge as the petitioner accepted
    correctness of the answer to the above question. Petitioner had not
    availed the opportunity, when RPSC had invited objections. Hence, the
    challenge made by the petitioner to Q.No.30 is rejected and the prayer
    on this ground is declined.
    Hence, the present petition is dismissed.
    (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
    Mak/-

  7. Vinod Kumar Sharma
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 19:02:09

    decision about jr as following 25/04/2017

  8. Vinod Kumar Sharma
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 18:58:11

    1/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
    JAIPUR
    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4867 / 2017
    Devesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About
    25 Years, Kalyan Ji Ke Mandir Ke Pas, Gandhi Thiraha, Lalsot Road,
    Dausa, Raj.
    —-Petitioner
    Versus
    1. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
    2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
    —-Respondents
    _____________________________________________________
    For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunandan Sharma
    For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma
    _____________________________________________________
    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
    Judgment
    25/04/2017
    To pick the threads, unravel and answer the
    controversy, it will be apposite here to reproduce two orders
    passed by this Court on 6.4.2017 and 13.4.2017.
    The order dated 6.4.2017, contain brief facts,
    contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, prayer made in
    the present petition and reasons for issuing notice to the
    respondents.
    The order dated 6.4.2017, reads as under:-
    “The present writ petition has been filed under Article
    226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a
    direction be issued to the respondents to re-examine
    Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II, of Junior
    Accountant Examination, 2013, held on 4.10.2016.
    The learned counsel for the petitioner has very
    2/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    fairly stated that regarding examination of Jr.
    Accountant this Court had already dealt with part of
    the controversy in bunch of writ petitions, lead case
    being Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs. Secretary, RPSC
    & Anr., SBCWP No.3985/2017, decided on
    27.3.2017.
    Briefly stated, the respondent RPSC had issued
    an advertisement on 18.9.2013, inviting applications
    for recruitment of Jr. Accountant and Tehsil Revenue
    Accountant. Petitioner had applied in pursuance of the
    advertisement and he was issued admission card to
    appear in the competitive examination. The written
    competitive examination was held on 4.10.2016. The
    candidates who appeared in the examination had to
    solve Paper-I and Paper-II. In the papers to be
    undertaken by the candidates, Knowledge about Book
    Keeping, Accounting, Business Management, Auditing,
    Indian Economics, Rajasthan Civil Services and
    General Finance and Account Rules and Accounting
    Rules was to be adjudged.
    In the present petition, the learned counsel for
    the petitioner has challenged the answer taken into
    consideration for evaluating the candidates qua
    Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II. Question Nos.
    56 and 95 of Paper-II, reads as under:-
    56. Which term defines internal audit with clarity?
    (1) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the
    business operation conducted by the internal audit
    staff.
    (2) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the
    financial statements conducted by the internal audit
    staff.
    (3) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the
    financial statements only conducted by the external
    agency.
    (4) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of
    operation of business conducted by external audit
    staff only.
    3/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    95. What is the percentage of direct and indirect
    taxes in the gross tax revenue of India in 2014-15?
    (1) 40:60 (2)54:46
    (3) 46:54 (4)60:40
    This Court shall first deal with Question No.56.
    The learned counsel for the petitioner has
    submitted that the examination was held on
    4.10.2016, answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016.
    The petitioner had filed objections qua Q.No.56 and
    result was declared on 7.11.2016. The learned
    counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since
    RPSC had received various objections, it constituted
    an expert panel and expert panel examined the
    objections and considering the opinion of the expert
    panel, the RPSC revised the answer key on
    18.11.2016 and the revised result was declared on
    24.2.2017.
    Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
    placed on record the report of expert as Annexure-12.
    The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
    that so far Q.No.56 is concerned, RPSC had given
    option No.1 as correct answer, experts after
    examining gave opinion to the RPSC that option Nos.
    1 and 2 both are correct answers. It is contended that
    the RPSC has ignored the opinion of the experts and
    instead of deleting the question, or holding that
    answer nos. 1 and 2 both are correct, the RPSC for
    evaluation has persisted that answer Option No.1 is
    correct answer. The learned counsel for the petitioner
    has contended that having appointed expert panel, it
    was necessary for the RPSC to yield to the opinion of
    the expert and act in consonance with their opinion. It
    is contended that RPSC could not ignore the opinion of
    the experts.
    As to why, opinion of the expert qua Q.No.56 of
    Paper-II has been ignored, issue notice to the
    respondent RPSC.
    On the asking of the court, Mr. Anand Sharma,
    4/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    accepts notice on behalf of the respondent RPSC. A
    copy of the petition has been served upon him.
    So far challenge to the Question No.95 is
    concerned, the same is to be rejected at the outset.
    The examination was held on 4.10.2016 and answer
    key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had
    not filed any objection qua Q.No.95. The petitioner
    accepted the answer given by RPSC to Q.No.95 to be
    correct. After revision of result, on 24.2.2016, the
    petitioner stood ousted from the selection process.
    Now the petitioner had approached this court that this
    Court should direct the respondent RPSC to examine
    the answer to Q.No.95.
    This is fourth round of litigation regarding the
    correctness of the answers. The selection/recruitment
    process cannot be an unending process. For the post
    of Jr. Accountant thousands of candidates had
    appeared and after each revision one or another
    candidate shall be dissatisfied and the court cannot
    stand in the way of recruitment and obstruct outcome
    of the recruitment process. The very fact that the
    examination was held on 4.10.2016, thereafter
    various round of litigation regarding correctness of
    answer have concluded, this Court will not entertain
    objections to Question No.95 of the petitioner, as at
    first opportunity, when chance was given to file
    objections, the petitioner had not filed the objections
    to the answer to Q.No.95. Furthermore, expert panel
    has already determined the objections.
    To the limited extent as to why report of expert
    qua Q.No.56 has not been granted sanctity, already
    this Court had issued the notice in the present case.
    List for arguments on 12.4.2017.
    Copy of this order under the seal and signature
    of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. Anand
    Sharma, counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC,
    for onward transmission and necessary compliance.”
    As is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 6.4.2017,
    5/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    the challenge was restricted to Question No.56, which has been
    reproduced in the order dated 6.4.2017.
    This Court had specifically put the respondent
    Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as
    ‘RPSC’), to notice as to why opinion of the expert panel formulated
    last in time qua Question No.56 of Paper-II has been ignored.
    Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the
    respondent RPSC, after taking instructions had reverted back to
    this Court on 13.4.2017. This Court on 13.4.2017 had passed the
    following order:-
    “In pursuance of the order dated 6.4.2017, Mr. Anand
    Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent
    RPSC has placed on record the communication
    received by him. The communication received by
    counsel for the respondent, reads as under:-
    rF;kRed fooj.k
    ,l-ch-fl-fj-;k-la- 4867@2017
    nsos’k dqekj ‘kekZ cuke~ jk-yks- ls-vk-
    Jr. Actt. Exam. 2013, paper II
    mDr ;kfpdk esa fuEu iz’uksRrjksa dks fookfnr crk;k x;k gS%&
    iz’u la- ,oa fo”k; vk;ksx dh
    mRrj dqath
    fnukad 24-02-
    17 esa mRrj
    fodYi
    fo’ks”kKksa 1- MkWjkts’k
    tSu 2-
    MkW xksfoUn
    izlkn xxZ dh
    fjiksVZ esa mRrj
    fodYi 06-10-16
    (Auditing)
    izFke mRrj
    dqath ftl ij
    vkifRr;ka ekaxh
    xbZ
    fo’ks”kKksa 1-
    MkW- ,y-lhikjokuh
    2-MkWds-,
    y- uoy dh
    fjiksVZ esa mRrj
    fodYi 07-10-16
    (Auditing)
    fo’ks”kKksa 1- Jh
    Hkokuh flag 2-
    MkW deys’k
    firokuh dh
    fjiksVZ esa mRrj
    fodYi 15-12-16
    (Auditing)
    fo’ks”kKksa 1- izkslqeu
    ikespk 2-
    izks- eatqyk feJk
    dh fjiksVZ esa
    mRrj fodYi
    (Economics)
    Ckgqer ds
    vk/kkj ij
    vk;ksx }kjk
    fu/kkZfjr mRrj
    fodYi
    56
    (Auditing)
    1 1 1 01 ,oa 02 rFkk
    confusing
    Question Hkh
    & 1
    6/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    fy[kk gSA
    95
    (Economics)
    2 & & & 2 2
    iz’u la- 56 tks fd vads{k.k fo”k; dk gS] ds ckjs esa 6 fo’ks”kKksa ls fjiksVZ izkIr dh xbZ Fkh buesa
    ls 4 fo’ks”kKksa ls izkIr jk;@fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ,oa cgqer ls vk;ksx }kjk mRrj fodYi 01 gh
    fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA vU; 2 fo’ks”kKksa us mRrj fodYi 01 ,oa 02 crk;k Fkk rFkk Þhence,
    question is confusingß Hkh fy[kk gSA vr% mRrj fodYi ^1^ cgqer ds vk/kkj ij
    fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA fo’ks”kKksa dh fjiksVZ layXu gSA
    iz’u la- 95 tks fd vFkZ’kkL= fo”k; dk gS] ds ckjs esa 3 fo’ks”kKksa ls jk; izkIr dh xbZ] fo’ks”kKksa
    dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mRrj fodYi 02 vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k FkkA fo’ks”kKksa dh
    fjiksVZ layXu gSA bl iz’u ds ckjs esa eku- mPp U;k- }kjk blh ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns’k fnukad
    06-04-2017 esa fuEu izdkj vafdr fd;k gSA ¼ist 4 f}rh; iSjk½ “This Court will not
    entertain objections to question No.95 of the Petitioner, as at
    first opportunity, when chance was given to file objections,
    the petitioner had not filed the objection to the answer to
    Q.No.95. Furthermore, expert panel has already determined
    the objection.”
    A perusal of the above communication reveals
    that the expert panel constituted on 6.10.2016 had
    given opinion that qua Question No.56, option No.1 is
    correct answer. It is further revealed that on
    7.10.2016, another expert panel had given opinion
    that option No.1 to Question No.56 is correct answer.
    It is stated that third panel was constituted and the
    said panel on 15.12.2016 gave opinion that option
    Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct and Question No.56 is a
    confusing question.
    The very fact that there was necessity to
    constitute third expert panel and the said panel held
    Question No.56 to be confusing by holding that option
    Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct, the respondent RPSC
    ought to have followed the opinion of the expert panel
    which had given opinion last in time. Once there is
    opinion that question is confusing, purity of
    7/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    examination require that RPSC should act in a larger
    interest.
    Before this Court could upset the decision of the
    respondent RPSC, Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned
    counsel for the respondent RPSC has prayed that a
    short adjournment be granted to him to file a detailed
    reply.
    Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, the learned counsel
    for the petitioner has opposed the grant of
    adjournment on the ground that already directions
    have been issued to the respondent RPSC to upload
    the result at the earliest and they are not doing so,
    the respondents have already committed willful
    disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.
    List this case for arguments on 19.4.2017.
    Detailed reply be filed on or before the said date.”
    From the perusal of the order dated 13.4.2017, it is
    apparent that qua Q.No.56, first panel of the experts consisting of
    Dr. Rajesh Jain and Dr. Govind Prasad Garg, held option No.1 to be
    correct. Second expert panel consisting of Dr. LC. Parwani and Dr.
    K.L. Naval also agreed with the first panel of experts and
    according to them, option No.1 is a correct answer. The first
    expert panel had given opinion on 6.10.2016 and second expert
    panel gave its opinion on 7.10.2016. It may be noted here that on
    15.12.2016, third expert panel consisting of Mr. Bhawani Singh
    and Dr. Kamlesh Pitwani, gave opinion that both options No. 1 and
    2 are correct and furthermore, question itself is confusing.
    This Court to enable the learned counsel for the
    respondent RPSC to file reply, had specifically asked the RPSC to
    spell rationale to ignore or reject the opinion given by expert panel
    constituted last in time and as to what was necessity to constitute
    third panel.
    8/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    In the communication received from the respondent
    RPSC, which has been reproduced in the order dated 13.4.2017,
    respondent has taken a stand that regarding correct answer to
    Q.No.56, decision has been taken on the basis of majority.
    Regarding constitution of third panel, following
    averment has been made in the reply, filed by the respondent
    RPSC:-
    “G. That however, feeling aggrieved by result of
    examination, number of persons filed different writ
    petitions before this Hon’ble Court impugning the
    validity of answers of different questions. While such
    writ petitions were pending, it was thought proper by
    the R.P.S.C. to again constitute an expert panel for
    re-examining the answer key by taking into
    consideration, the objections raised in such writ
    petitions. Such appointment of third expert panel was
    totally bona fide action on the part of the R.P.S.C., as
    the R.P.S.C. was keen to resolve the dispute at the
    earliest and had intention to finalize the process of
    recruitment by giving rest to all the disputes. Such
    third panel of experts gave its report on 15.12.2016.
    So far as question no.56 is concerned, the expert
    panel was of the view that both Options-1 & 2 given
    below the question no.56 were correct answers and
    the question itself was narrated as confusing
    question.”
    As to why, third panel was constituted, Mr. Anand
    Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC has made
    the following statement at Bar. The said statement recorded by
    the court reads as under:-
    “Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, at
    the Bar has stated that numerous writ petitions were pending and
    during pendency of the writ petitions, to meet the objections
    9/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    raised therein, the Commission had its own appointed third expert
    panel consisting of two experts namely Mr. Bhawani Singh and Dr.
    Kamlesh Pitwani. The said expert panel on 15.12.2016, had given
    their opinion qua Q.No.56.”
    Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, the learned counsel for the
    petitioner has contended that to disarm the candidates who had
    challenged the answer to Q.No.56, by filing various writs, the
    respondent RPSC had taken a stand that suo moto expert panel
    has been appointed and thus, challenge given by the candidates
    had gone unanswered by this Court. It is submitted that the stand
    was taken by RPSC as a ploy to frustrate the challenge made by
    the candidates by filing writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has
    termed action of the respondents as a design to secure disposal of
    writ petitions pending in this Court. It is contended by the learned
    counsel for the petitioner that once writ petitions were disposed
    of, even having obtained opinion of the third expert panel, the
    respondent RPSC reverted to the rule of majority, as if the
    respondent RPSC was not wedded to principle of excellence to
    scout best talent.
    This Court could have well understood if the members
    of the respondent RPSC had recorded their differences and had
    formulated their opinion by the majority but the respondent RPSC
    was neither drawing draw of lots nor could apply rule of majority
    once, it had decided to constitute a third panel having its own
    doubts regarding correctness of answer to the Q.No.56.
    It will be travesty of the justice that challenge to this
    question by filing numerous writ petitions was blunted by the
    10/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    respondent RPSC by taking a stand that they have constituted an
    expert panel. Having obtained the opinion of the expert panel, the
    respondent RPSC persisted and proceeded with the earlier answer
    by ignoring the opinion of the third expert panel by saying that the
    opinion formulated by first and second expert panel is to be
    accepted by invoking the rule of majority. If that was to be done,
    what was the need to constitute third expert panel. Majority of
    opinion was already with RPSC. Constitution of third expert panel
    was not an idle formality. To illustrate by taking example of Tennis
    match, two sets were already on the side of RPSC, and what was
    need to play third set except to frustrate challenge given by the
    candidates, who had filed the writ petition.
    Having noted the conduct of the respondent RPSC, it is
    time to notice whether this Court can take recourse to the judicial
    review.
    In the case of multiple choice type question paper, the
    validity of answer key, on numerous occasions has faced
    challenge. The law has been well settled by a Division Bench of
    Delhi High Court in the case of Sumit Kumar vs. High Court of
    Delhi & Anr., W.P.© 3453/2016, decided on 9.5.2016. It will
    be apposite here to reproduce the law summed up by Division
    Bench of Delhi High Court, in the case of Sumit Kumar (supra) as
    under:-
    “7. Before we examine the questions and answers to
    which objections have been raised, we must elucidate
    and reflect on the legal position as to the scope and
    ambit of judicial review when a multiple choice
    question paper and answer key are questioned. The
    law on the point is no longer res integra and stands
    11/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    lucidly and clearly exposited in Salil Maheshwari Vs.
    High Court of Delhi & Anr., 2014 (145) DRJ 225 in
    the following words:-
    “11. Before recording a decision on the merits,
    the scope of judicial review of an answer key in
    a test for law graduates, such as for the DJS
    examination, must be recognised. The law
    prevailing in this regard is laid down in Kanpur
    University (supra), in respect of the answer key
    in a combined medical test in which the four
    subjects tested were physics, chemistry, zoology
    and botany. The Court in that case held:
    “We agree that the key-answer should be
    assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be
    wrong and that it should not be held to be
    wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or
    by a process of rationalisation. It must be
    clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say,
    it must be such as no reasonable body of men
    well-versed in the particular subject would
    regard as correct. The contention of the
    University is falsified in this case by a large
    number of acknowledged text – books, which
    are commonly read by students in U.P. Those
    text – books leave no room for doubt that the
    answer given by the students is correct and the
    key answer is incorrect.
    17. …Certain books are prescribed for the
    Intermediate Board Examination and such
    knowledge of the subjects as the students have
    is derived from what is contained in those textbooks.
    Those text-books support the case of the
    students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we
    would have unquestionably preferred the key
    answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of
    doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the
    students for not giving an answer which accords
    with the key answer, that is to say, with an
    answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.”
    12/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    The aforesaid paragraph refers to a quotation
    from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur
    University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and
    holds that three propositions of law emerge. These
    are:-
    “12.Three propositions of law emerge from
    Kanpur University (supra), on the permissible
    extent of judicial review of an answer key. First,
    the answer key must be presumed to be correct
    and must be followed, even in the face of a
    mere doubt, second, only if a key answer is
    demonstrably wrong, in the opinion of a
    reasonable body of persons well-versed in the
    subject, it may be subject to judicial review, and
    third, if the answer key is incorrect beyond
    doubt, then a candidate cannot be penalised for
    answers at variance with the key. This position
    was reiterated in Manish Ujwal and Ors. v.
    Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and
    Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 744 and DPS Chawla v.
    Union ofIndia, 184 (2011) DLT 96.”
    8.Salil Maheshwari (supra) also dealt with the
    question of re-valuation and has concluded that the
    question of re-valuation does not strictly arise when
    the examination comprises only multiple choice
    questions. The reason being that multiple choice
    question test is premised on the basis that there is
    only one, objective correct answer to every question.
    The system of multiple choice objective type test and
    scope and ambit of judicial review was examined in
    Kanpur University’s case (supra), and illuminated the
    following words:
    “18. … Fourthly, in a 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. That kind of system of
    examination involves merely the tick-marking of
    the correct answer. It leaves no scope for
    reasoning or argument. The answer is ‘yes’ or
    13/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    ‘no’. That is why the questions have to be clear
    and unequivocal.”
    In Salil Maheshwari (supra), after referring to
    the aforesaid quotation from Kanpur University
    (supra), it has been observed:-
    “22. The very finding that a key answer is not
    the objective, single, correct answer of the four
    options provided, and that another answer is
    “correct” according to those well-versed in the
    subject, itself would merit the awarding of
    additional marks to candidates who had chosen
    the latter answer. There arises no need to
    “evaluate” or examine a response of a candidate
    for a second time, since all candidates who have
    answered in accordance with the answer key
    that the experts in the field affirm, are
    automatically entitled to the award of additional
    marks. The precedents on re-evaluation are only
    applicable in the context of examinations which
    permit subjective written answers, and not
    objective, multiple-choice questions that permit
    the selection of just one “correct” answer. There
    would be no infirmity in the approach of a Court
    that directs reassessment, such as in Kanpur
    University (supra) itself, on the ground that the
    answer key is incorrect. In the present case,
    this court has recorded findings on each of the
    three questions, to say that the answer keys
    used for correcting the question papers used
    one single correct answer; the alternative
    options cannot be said to be unambiguously
    clear answers, so as to result in confusion on
    the part of the examinee, who attempted the
    preliminary test”
    This Court need not apply the standard test of
    demonstrable wrong or palpably wrong as the third panel
    constituted by the respondent RPSC to ward off all challenge, in
    14/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    various writ petitions, itself has held that option Nos. 1 and 2 both
    are correct and the question is confusing. Thus, question No.56
    has been termed by expert panel to be confusing, hence, said
    question is not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. That being
    so, there is no other option with this Court but to strike Q.No.56
    from the Question Paper. Hence, a direction is issued that the said
    question No.56 shall be deleted and revised result shall be
    prepared and declared by the respondent RPSC to end simmering
    and long standing grievance of the candidates that RPSC is not
    capable of conducting papers upto the highest standard.
    Till today, RPSC has conducted more than hundred
    competitive examinations, for recruitment of various posts. Till
    today there is not a single examination, where due to challenge
    made to this Court or Supreme Court, RPSC has not revised the
    result. Sometimes RPSC has to revise result for more than four
    times. Each competitive examination open flood gates of litigation,
    which result into various rounds of litigation. Revised result
    prepared by expert panel again lead to challenge resulting to rerevision
    of the result. Time has come for the court to ring alarm
    bell. Those who are at helm of affairs at RPSC, must now awake
    from their slumber. They must tread with caution, to select paper
    setter. The experts selected ought to be persons of eminence.
    Doling out of favours to incompetent persons as paper setters or
    experts must end once for all.
    Taking totality of circumstances and reasons spelt
    above, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. The
    cost shall be deposited with the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal
    15/15
    SBCWP No.4867/2017
    Services Authority, within one month, as at instance of RPSC
    unnecessary unwanted litigation has been generated, leading to
    filing of numerous writ petitions. Lot of time and energy of this
    court has been wasted by deciding the writ petitions and the
    appeals arising therefrom, which could have been avoided, had
    RPSC ensured highest standards.
    (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.
    Mak/-

  9. anilwalia456
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 15:23:12

    Hello friends

    FOR rpsc ldc 2013 selected candidate….

    friends aaj 1 bat kuch logo dwara failai ja rhi h ki hmari bharti 9 august tk aage ltka di gyi h lekin iska authentication kisi k dwara nhi kiya gya h

    m aap sbhi only selected ldc candidates ko bolna chata hu ki ldc ki sabhi vishvasniya jakari se update rhne k liye aap mere RPSC’s clerks whatsapp grop se judne k liye message kre. 9587160216

    BYE!!!

  10. Manoj Kumar
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 14:41:39

    I AM HANDICAP MY MOBILE NO 9571905984

  11. surajchoudhary5212
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 14:38:23

    Rpsc LDC ki rok 9 Aug tk high court ka decision agli sunwai 9 Aug ko

  12. Pankaj Sharma
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 13:29:07

    jo bhi handicapt h or ldc me select nhi hue h,, apne mobile no de

  13. Anu Mishra
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 12:49:18

    mannu bhai , vikky bhai kya hua hearing ka ……….kitne baje h kya hua ………..koi comment hi nhi h aaj to

  14. summiee89
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 12:19:48

    Kahan aaya uska decision…usme to kewal ek question par hi hai..jiski hearing thi kal

  15. summiee89
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 12:18:56

    Abhi se kahan answer key aa gayi…
    Bana lo public ko chuja

  16. Emitra Sangawas Apna Emitra
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 11:32:38

    RPSC Sr Teacher Exam Answerkey 26-04-2017 ON

  17. Emitra Sangawas Apna Emitra
    Apr 26, 2017 @ 08:32:06

    RPSC Sr Teacher Exam Answerkey 26-04-2017 on http://www.rpscblog.in

  18. Dipendra Singh Bidawat
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 15:18:47

    Jr. Accountant ki aj sunwai thi usi ka decesion h result fir se revise hoyega

  19. summiee89
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 14:18:25

    aaj sunwai hai 4867/2017 ki
    uska kya hua kisi ko jankari

  20. mamta meena (@mm777777777779)
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 11:34:40

    rpsc jr acc ka kya hua

  21. Harish Vyas
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 10:24:52

    rpsc ne jr acc 2013 bharti ka majak bna kr rakh diya h aur bar bar result revise krke njane kite candidates ko mentally harras kiya h kabhi court 1881 ka ans 1881 krta h kabhi 1881 ko delete krta h isme sari ki sari glti rpsc ke paper setter aur expert ki h rpsc ke expert hi puri tarah se ayogya prove ho rhe h pahle rpsc ko apne staff ki bharti shi se krni chahiye kyoki jo rpsc apne staff member jinme paper setter aur expert h jo q ke answer set krte h aur 4 bar answer key dene ke bad bhi ayogya sabhit ho rhe h jiske karan candidates ko sahna pd rha h.

  22. Anu Mishra
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 10:21:06

    bhai ab ye khabar kitni sach h ………………..juniour accountant ki????

  23. Harish Vyas
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 10:09:49

    rpsc jr accountant bharti 2013 hc ne diye revise result ke order

  24. Dipendra Singh Bidawat
    Apr 25, 2017 @ 10:08:48

    Zee Rajasthan News‏ @zeerajasthan_ 3m3 minutes ago
    More
    #Jaipur जूनियर अकाउंटेंट भर्ती परीक्षा-2013,HC में हुई सुनवाई,चौथी बार परिणाम जारी करने के दिए आदेश,#RPSC पर लगाया 5 लाख का जुर्माना

  25. ashish511
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 22:18:00

    Bhaiyo ye bataiye ki jab Rpsc ke notification m ye saaf saaf likha h ki jo candidate typing qualified krega usi ke efficiency ke numbers typing m count hoige otherwise uske efficiency ke numbers cout hi nhi hoige toh Rpsc apna dala hua notification hi kaise bhul sakti h….toh abaIyo ise baare m aapni raye rakhiye….

  26. Raj Kumar Prajapat
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 20:39:00

    jr. accountant ki joining kab tak milegi

  27. mannubajaj143
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 17:35:16

    recit me exam k samay
    admission hona chiye …

  28. Vikash Sharma
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 17:00:25

    RPSC KE SPASTIKARAN ME JO ANTIM VARSH WORD USE AAYA HAI WO KEWAL COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPLOMA/DEGREE AND BCA WALO KE LIYE HAI KYU KI RSCIT 3 MONTH KI HOTI HAI AT ISKE SATH ANTIM VARSH WORD USE NAHI KAR SAKTE

  29. dkulria
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 11:19:34

    सरकार को 2 मई के बाद सरकारी नौकरियों का पिटारा खोलने की छूट मिल जाएगी। राज्य सरकार के कैबिनेट सब कमेटी के मंत्रियों और भारत सरकार के अटॉर्नी जनरल के बीच हुई बातचीत के बाद लंबित सभी भर्तियों के रास्ते साफ होने की उम्मीद जागी है।
    केंद्र सरकार के अटॉनी जनरल मुकुल रोहतगी और पंचायती राजमंत्री राजेंद्र राठौड़, सामाजिक न्याय एवं अधिकारिता मंत्री अरूण चतुर्वेदी व सामान्य प्रशासन मंत्री हेमसिंह भड़ाना के बीच हुई बात के बाद राज्य सरकार को लीगल राय मिल चुकी है। इसके बाद अब गुर्जर समाज सहित सभी वर्ग के बेरोजगारों को लंबित पदों पर नियुक्ति मिलने की संभावना बनी है।
    बताया जा रहा है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 2 मई को होने वाली सुनवाई में सरकार अपना यही पक्ष रखेगी। जिसके अनुसार एसबीसी आरक्षण मामले की वजह से लम्बित रीट, व्याख्याता, पटवारी, एनटीटी, पशुधन सहायक, प्रयोगशाला सहायक, पुस्कालय सहित करीब 30 भर्तियों की नियुक्ति प्रकिया के आदेश जारी हो जाएंगे।
    एसबीसी आरक्षण मामले को लेकर आज दिल्ली मे अटॉर्नी जनरल मुकुल रोहतगी के साथ कैबिनेट सब कमेटी के तीनों मंत्रियों व एडवोकेट जनरल नरपत मल लोढा के अलावा डीओपी सेक्रेट्री की मिटिंग हुई। इस मीटिंग में सरकार ने बीच का रास्ता निकालते हुए कर्नाटक की तर्ज पर सभी भर्तियों के लिए 5 प्रतिशत अतिरिक्त सीटें बढ़ाने का निर्णय लिया है।
    इस मीटिंग में राज्य सरकार ने अटॉर्नी जनरल मुकुल रोहतगी की लीगल ओपिनियन के अनुसार निर्णय लिया है। जिसमें लम्बित एसबीसी आरक्षण के चयनित अभ्यर्थियों को भी नियुक्ति मिल सकेगी। सरकार के इस कदम पर खुशी व्यक्त करते हुए राजस्थान बेरोजगार एकीकृत महासंघ ने उम्मीद जताई है कि अब सभी भर्तियों की रूकावटें दूर हो जाएंगी। महासंघ के अध्यक्ष उपेन यादव ने बताया कि अब सरकार अपना पक्ष मजबूती से रख पाएगी, जिससे गुर्जर सहित सभी जातियों के साथ न्याय हो सकेगा।
    सभी भर्तियों में जनरल की 5% सीटें बढाकर तमिलनाडु सरकार की तर्ज पर फैसला लिया गया है। लीगल राय मिलने के कारण 2 मई को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में राज्य सरकार अपना यह नया प्रस्ताव पेश करेगी। चूंकि सुप्रीम कोर्ट की ओर से राज्य सरकार से अपना प्रस्ताव मांगा गया था, अत: माना जा रहा है कि 2 मई कोर्ट की सुनवाई के बाद लम्बित सभी भर्तियों का रास्ता खुल जाएगा।

  30. Anu Mishra
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 09:25:35

    sahi h bhai kyu ladai kare ham sab log…………jo hoga vo ho jayega hamare or tumare kahne se kya hoga……….vikky bhai , karwasara bhai , jaipee ab ladai chodo……………..

  31. dharmraj043
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 09:05:48

    are bhai vikki16 and devenderkarwasara ji kyu jhagad rahe ho yar ek doosre ke n. le kar watsapp par hi lad lo na yaar. . . kyu achchhe khaase pltform ki ma bahan ek kar rahe ho yaar. .. .

  32. ajaat
    Apr 24, 2017 @ 04:07:34

    Bhai vikky ..heads off nhi hats off hota h yar.. ssc upsc ki teyari kr rha h.. thoda to english ki ijjat rakh.

  33. jaipeee
    Apr 23, 2017 @ 00:57:00

    Ek bar kyon 1000 bar result revise karwana. Hame koi dar ni. Yad rakhna, mehant ka fal hamesha meetha hota h. I think u r understant anu mishra..
    Bas hame to aapki es halat par taras aata h.

  34. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 21:20:51

    Yr Teri Ft Kyu Rhi H M tere Ghr M hi Aa Rha Hu Khte h Kuta Apni Gali M sher Hota h Fir M to teri Gali Kya Tere Ghr Aa Rha Hu…. Fir Kyu Dr Rha h Jo Bewkoof hote h Vo Josh M Share Kr Dete h To Uska Ntija Khud Bogte h… Kl milunga Dr Kyu Rha h Tere hi Bill m Aa rha hu Mere Ghr Se Nikl Kr

  35. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:52:45

    Are o kayar kr Tera address share

  36. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:46:56

    Tu is vaham me baitha hoga ki tera email account farzi h to kya details nikalegi. Teri oookat ni h samne aane ki. Bil me ghus kr baitha h tu. Kr tera address share tujhe challange kr rha hu

  37. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:44:43

    Ab teri address share karne me fati kyo padi h kr apna address share bayadaway address to tera me nikalwakar rahunga bas me nikalwaunga to thoda time lagega.

  38. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:41:55

    Ab tu teri had par kr rha h

  39. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:40:55

    Tu bata na tera contact or address

  40. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:39:23

    Me to ab bhi sahi hu or tu mujhe bar bar mere hi contact no. Or address kya bata rha h tere bata dam ni h kya

  41. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:37:11

    M Or Tuje Sorry Us time Tu Shi Tha Bcz Tu Qualify Tha Tb Bola Ab tu Mha Chutiya H tere Ghr Aa rha Hu Yr Tnsn Kyu Le rha H Contact Nmbr H mere pas 9461795912 Bill M Kha Chup Rha Hu Tere Home town Aa rha Hu Milte H Face To Face Dekhte H Teri Reputation

  42. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:27:06

    Tu tera address bata bil me chup kar kyo baitha h

  43. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:24:43

    Tu to tera address share kr bas. Or tune kya nikala h chutkiyon me mera address sab ko pata h ki contact no. Or dob se rpsc ki site se form details nikalti h or maine meri dob,roll no. Or contact no. Yha share kiye the teri juban band karne k leye tb tu hi tha na mujhe sorry bolne wala

  44. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:06:39

    Tera Talent 7 sal ka Hahaha 7 Sal m log IAS Bn Jate H… YE bhai ShahEB LDC Tk phuch Gya Kya talent paya h… Heads Off

  45. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 20:04:38

    Tune Kya Ghnta Btaya H… Ye to Chand Seconds ka kam h…. Kl Milte H market Mein 10:30 Am Aa jana Face 2 Face Bat Krte H Tuje RPSC Ki joining Dilwate H…..

  46. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 19:43:52

    Tu tera address share kar me to apna sab kuch share kar hi rha hu mujhe mera address kya bata rha h tere me dam h to tera address bata or ache se pata kr lena ki taranagar me hamari kya hasti h. Ha mera to tukke se ho gya tujhe itni jalan kaise ho rhi h

  47. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 19:39:05

    Devendar Karwsra S/O Purna Ram Karwasra
    Ward 15 Behind Power Housa Married H Bhai Shaheb Ka talent 2010 Se Dikh Rha h Ab Tukka Lg gya to uchl rhe h

  48. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 19:30:55

    Phir dar kyo rha h apna name,address share kar

  49. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 19:28:51

    tujhe 1000 bar mere contact no de deye yaha or tu kahe to name address sab de du tu samne aa kar baat kar mujhe pata h Teri ookaat ni h saamne aane ki. Tere jaise sanskar ni deye h mere ghar walo ne jo har kisi ko gali nikale. Blog pr sab bhaiyon ko pata h ki insan kon h or janwar kon h. Me to insan hu na to sher hu or na hi memana. Ha ha ha ha ha

  50. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 19:19:27

    Chlne de to kya Ho Jayega??? Or Vase Bhi Tuj jese Ko M Ek Kida mkoda smjta hu kyu apna tym waste kr rha hu Tum jeso se Teri Boli se hi pta lg rha h jo last word aye h na Vo teri lachari h Frji Jise pta chl gya ki Glt ho jayega Mmiya rha h jese ek Bhed ka memna mmiyata h Sher k samne

  51. devenderkarwasara
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 18:59:01

    Tu der kyo kr rha h mera to contact vagaraha sab h tere paas so tu chakki piswa hi de mujhe. Logo ko teri ookaat pta chal chuki h

  52. vikky16
    Apr 22, 2017 @ 18:54:23

    Mera Kya H m to abhi Prepration kr rha hu Lekin Tere hath Mein Joining ani baki h agr mene case kr diya to jo tu ldc ko Lekr Uchl rha h Na To fir Court k chkr katega So Silent Ho ja vrna m vilent Ho jaunga Fir Chki Pising N Pising On the Jail

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: