Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a series of appeals arising from the selection process for Senior Teacher (Grade II) posts in Rajasthan, initiated by an advertisement dated 13.07.2016 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). Written examinations were conducted in 2017, and after multiple rounds of litigation, answer keys were revised by expert committees. The 2nd Answer Key was issued on 17.09.2018, and a revised Select List was prepared. Some candidates challenged the correctness of certain questions, leading to a Division Bench judgment on 12.03.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018, which directed revision of the Select List but restricted the benefit only to the appellants therein. Subsequently, a 3rd Answer Key was published on 08.04.2019, but its benefit was given only to those appellants. The appellants in the present appeals, who were not parties to that appeal, sought revision of the Select List based on the 3rd Answer Key. The Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 24.07.2019, upheld the Select List based on the 2nd Answer Key and dismissed the writ petitions. The Supreme Court considered whether the Division Bench's judgment could be restricted to the appellants therein. The court noted that the Division Bench had examined the correctness of the questions and answer keys, which is impermissible as courts lack expertise in academic matters. The court held that the Division Bench was justified in restricting the relief to the appellants before it, as the selection process had been finalized and appointments had been made. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision and directing that the appointments already made shall not be disturbed. The court also noted that 51 persons had already been appointed and the remaining appointments were stayed by the Supreme Court's interim order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Answer Key Revision - The court considered whether the benefit of a Division Bench judgment revising answer keys could be restricted only to the appellants before it. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was justified in restricting the relief to the appellants therein, as the selection process had already been finalized based on the 2nd Answer Key and the court lacked expertise to re-evaluate academic questions. (Paras 10-11) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Re-evaluation of Answer Keys - The court deprecated the practice of courts examining the correctness of questions and answer keys in academic matters, as courts lack expertise. It held that re-evaluation can only be directed if rules permit, and the High Court's examination of disputed questions was impermissible. (Para 11) C) Service Law - Finality of Selection - Fence-Sitters - The court upheld the Division Bench's decision that candidates who did not approach the court at the earliest point of time are not entitled to relief, as the selection process had attained finality and appointments had been made. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 12.03.2019 of the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018 can be restricted only to the Appellants therein, and whether the revised Select List should have been prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key instead of the 2nd Answer Key.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 24.07.2019. The court held that the Division Bench was justified in restricting the relief to the appellants therein, and the revised Select List based on the 2nd Answer Key was valid. The court directed that the appointments already made shall not be disturbed.
Law Points
- Restriction of relief to parties before court
- Finality of selection process
- Non-interference with expert answer keys
- No re-evaluation by courts
- Fence-sitters not entitled to relief
