RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.versusRAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. ETC. ETC.

                        [2018] 6 S.C.R. 983                           983


                   RICHAL & ORS. ETC.ETC.                             A
                                v.
        RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                       & ORS. ETC. ETC.
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 4695-4699 of 2018)                  B
                          MAY 03, 2018
         [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
       Service Law – State Public Service Commission advertised
posts of School Lecturers for various subjects under Secondary        C
Education Department – Examination was conducted – Answer keys
were published – Commission invited objections regarding the
answer key – Candidates submitted objections – Commission
declared the result – Appellants contended that certain questions
need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court issued directions
                                                                      D
that certain questions needed re-examination by experts – Pursuant
thereto, Expert committee re-examined the objections and the report
was filed by the Commission – Appellants contended that in revision
also, certain mistakes have not been corrected – Held: Challenges
relating to correctness of answer key has to be entertained on a
very limited ground and due weight has to be given to the opinion     E
of the subject experts – In instant case, the Expert Committee,
constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through every
objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answered
the same – The Commission has also accepted the report of the
Expert Committee and has proceeded to revise the results of
                                                                      F
appellants – Thus, report of the Expert Committee which has been
accepted by the Commission has to be implemented.
      Service Law – State Public Service Commission conducted
examination – Answer keys published – Commission invited
objections regarding the answer key – Appellants contended that
certain questions need re-examination by experts – Supreme Court      G
issued directions that certain questions needed re-examination by
experts – Pursuant thereto, expert committee re-examined the
objections and the report was filed by the Commission – However,
Commission revised the result of only 311 appellants – Held:
                                                                      H
                               983
984            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     Commission should revise the entire result of all the candidates –
      Key answers having been corrected, merit of all the candidates except
      those who have already been selected needs to be redetermined –
      When the key answers of the candidates who appeared in the
      examination are correct, they are entitled for revision of their result,
      since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with examination
B
      body – It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those
      candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the
      steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee
      which was given the task of revising the key answers – Equity.
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
C
            HELD: 1. The appellants have pointed out several questions
      in paper which according to them have not been correctly
      answered by the Expert Committee. However, the answers given
      by the Expert Committee are correct and no error can be found
      with the answers of the Expert Committee with regard to the
D     questions which have been pointed out. The Expert Committee,
      constituted for validation of answer key, has gone through every
      objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily answered
      the same. The Commission has also accepted the Report of the
      Expert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result of
E     311 appellants. Thus, the Report of the Expert Committee which
      has been accepted by the Commission need to be implemented.
      [Para 20]
             2. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned
      that the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are
F     before this Court. The key answers having been corrected, merit
      of all the candidates except those who have already been selected
      needs to be redetermined. The Commission should revise the
      entire result of all the candidates except those who have been
      selected on the basis of the report of Expert Committee and
      publish revised result of all the candidates. When the key answers
G     are correct of the candidates who appeared in the examination,
      they are entitled for revision of their result, since, fault does not
      lie with the candidates but lies with the examination body. It shall
      not be equitable to not extend the benefit to those candidates
      who have not come to the Court being satisfied with the steps
H     taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee which
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                        985


was given the task of revising the key answers.[Para 23][999-D-F]      A
      Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others
      v. Samir Gupta and others (1983) 4 SCC 309 : [1984]
      1 SCR 73; Manish Ujwal and others v. Maharishi
      Dayanand Saraswati University and others (2005) 13
      SCC 744 – relied on.                                             B
      Guru Nank Dev University v. Saumil Garg and others
      (2005) 13 SCC 749; Rajesh Kumar and others v. State
      of Bihar and others (2013) 4 SCC 690 : [2013]
      4 SCR 753; Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors.
      dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 of              C
      Rajasthan High Court – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
      [1984] 1 SCR 73          relied on       Para 14
      (2005) 13 SCC 744        relied on       Para 12                 D
      (2005) 13 SCC 749        referred to     Para 13
      [2013] 4 SCR 753         referred to     Para 13
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4695-
4699 of 2018.
                                                                       E
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.03.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Sp.. Appl. Writ Nos.
191, 206, 209, & 230 of 2017.
                               WITH
      C. A. Nos. 4722-4725, 4702, 4700-4701, 4711-4712, 4707-4710,     F
4703-4706, 4726, 4713-4720, 4721, 4727, 4730, 4728, 4729, 4731 and
4754 of 2018.
      N. K. Mody, Vikash Singh, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Advs.,
Ankur Mody, Ms. Siddhi Padia, Ms. Santosh Sharma, Pardeep Gupta,
Parinav Gupta, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Moazzam Ali, Wazir Singh Malik, Dr.    G
(Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Prasant Agarwal, Sagar Kumar, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, L. M. Sharma, Amit Bhandari, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Ms. Sushma
Singh, R. Singh Chhillar, M/s Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., Mukesh
Kumar Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, V. Vyas, Rajiv Kumar,
Shantanu J., Anil Kumar Gautam, Ankur, Syed Mahaboob, P. Jegan,
                                                                       H
986            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, V. Vyas, Abhishek
      Tripathi, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Brijeshj Kalappa,
      Neelkanth D., Ankolekar Gurudatta, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Amita,
      Amit, Prashant Bhushan, Govind Jee, Omanakuttan K.K., Ms. Archana
      Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Rathi, Utsav, Advs. for the
      Appellants.
B
             Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Surya Kant, Pranav Vyas, Ms. Shifali
      Jain, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Aditya Pushkal Khanna, Anish Kumar Gupta,
      Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Harsha, Ms. Kiran Bala Sahay, Ms. Priyanka,
      Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Milind Kumar, Rohit K.
      Singh, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari,
C     P. Saravanaraja, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.
             2. This batch of appeals questions the judgment delivered by
D     Special Appeal Benches of the Rajasthan High Court. The Special
      Appellate judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated 08.03.2017 delivered
      at Jodhpur and Judgment dated 13.04.2017 delivered at Jaipur Bench,
      affirming the judgments of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
      petitions filed by the appellants are under challenge.
E            3. The appellants had appeared in School Lecturer Exam – 2015
      conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
      to as “Commission”), in which they could not be declared successful.
      Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are:-
            (i) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide its
F           advertisement dated 16.10.2015 advertised 13,000 posts of School
            Lecturers for various subjects under Secondary Education
            Department, Government of Rajasthan. The examination
            consisted of two papers – Paper-I – General Awareness and
            General Studies, and Paper-II of respective subjects. The
            examination was conducted on 17.07.2016. On 12.08.2016, answer
G
            keys were published inviting objections regarding the answer key.
            Many candidates submitted objections with regard to different
            subjects, with regard to Paper-I as well as Paper-II. On
            22.09.2016, the Commission declared the result, against which
            several writ petitions were filed questioning various answers as
H
RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                             987
              [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

  per final answer key. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment        A
  and order dated 08.11.2016 in Writ Petition No. 15028/2016 -
  Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. RPSC & Ors. disposed of the writ
  petition with various directions. One of the directions was to upload
  the revised answer key along with report of Experts on the website
  within one week. In pursuance of directions of learned Single
                                                                          B
  Judge dated 08.11.2016, final answer key was published on
  18.11.2016 and 18 questions in Paper-I were deleted. Second
  round of litigations was started by filing various Writ Petitions by
  the candidates raising various objections to the answer key. The
  learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 08.02.2017 at Jodhpur
  dismissed the bunch of writ petitions after considering the             C
  objections raised by several writ petitioners. Learned Single Judge
  accepted the Expert Committee’s report on various answers.
  (ii) Against the judgment dated 08.02.2017, writ appeals were
  filed by various candidates at Jodhpur. The Division Bench vide
  its judgment dated 08.03.2017 dismissed the writ appeals confirming     D
  the judgment of learned Single Judge. While dismissing the writ
  appeals, various directions were issued by the Division Bench to
  the Commission with regard to preparation and publication of
  answer key and action to be taken against those who are entrusted
  with the preparation of key answers. At Jaipur also, writ petitions
  were dismissed, against which writ appeals were filed and vide          E
  judgment dated 13.04.2017, following the judgment dated
  08.03.2017 delivered at Jodhpur, the Division Bench also dismissed
  the different writ appeals.
  (iii) Following judgment dated 08.03.2017, the Division Bench both
  at Jodhpur and Jaipur dismissed several other writ appeals. Before      F
  us, the appeals filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2017 and
  judgment dated 13.04.2017 and various other judgments following
  earlier judgments have been filed. The judgment dated 08.03.2017
  delivered at Jodhpur Bench is the main judgment which has been
  followed by the High Court in several judgments for deciding this       G
  batch of appeals. It shall be sufficient to refer to and consider the
  Division Bench judgment dated 08.03.2017 giving rise to the Civil
  Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14306-14310 of 2017 – Richal
  & ors. etc.etc. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission &
  ors. etc. etc. for deciding this batch of appeals.
                                                                          H
988            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           4. In this batch of appeals, various applications for impleadment
      and intervention have been filed. We allow all the impleadment and
      intervention applications. This Court after hearing the matter on
      16.01.2018 passed the following order:-
              “The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) had
B           issued an advertisement for filling up of more than 13,000
            posts of school lecturers in the State of Rajasthan. The written
            test was conducted pursuant thereto. The key to the answers
            was also published. Some of the candidates questioned that
            the aforesaid key does not give correct answers to some of
            the questions. It was mentioned that few questions were not
C           even correctly framed. On that basis, a writ petition was filed
            in the High Court. Learned Single Judge after going into the
            said grievances of those candidates gave a direction 4 for
            constituting the Expert Committee to examine as to whether
            the key to the answers is correct. The Expert Committee gave
D           its report recommending deletion of 18 questions which
            according to the Expert Committee were not correctly framed
            and, therefore, needed to be deleted. It also corrected the
            answers to some other questions.
              This led to second round of litigation as the petitioners herein
E           (who were the writ petitioners in the High Court) submitted
            that even the aforesaid report of the Expert Committee was
            not correct. It was submitted that 13 questions were wrongly
            deleted. In support of this, the petitioners refer to the text
            books of the NCRT as per which those questions were rightly
            framed and there was no question to delete them. It was also
F           submitted that five questions were still wrongly framed, which
            needed to be deleted or correct answers as suggested by the
            Expert Committee be corrected. The High Court has dismissed
            this writ petition. It has inter alia observed that the matter be
            given quietus inasmuch as it would be in the public interest
G           not to delay the appointment of 13,000 teachers in the State
            of Rajasthan.
              We are informed that after declaration of the result,
            successful candidates have already been given appointment.
            It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners
H
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                               989
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      that many posts are still lying vacant. They further submit             A
      that they have no objection if the candidates who have already
      been appointed, their appointment is not disturbed and at the
      same time the grievances as pointed out by the petitioners be
      looked into by the Expert Committee again and if it finds
      justification in the claim of the 5 petitioners, fully or partially,
                                                                              B
      only cases of other candidates who have not been appointed
      be re-examined on the basis of the report that would be given
      by the Expert Committee’s recommendations on these aspects.
      The learned counsel for RPSC wants some time to take
      instructions in this behalf.
        List the matters on 06.02.2018.”                                      C

       5. In pursuance of our directions dated 16.01.2018, an Expert
Committee was appointed to re-examine the grievances of writ
petitioners/appellants. An affidavit dated 14.04.2018 sworned by Ramdev
Siroya has been filed by the Commission. It is stated in the affidavit that
on the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers in all the nine        D
subjects for which these Experts were appointed has been re-examined
and the answers were revised. It shall be useful to extract Paragraphs
5 and 6 of the affidavit, which is to the following effect:-
      “5. On the basis of reports of Experts, overall 22 answers in
      all the nine subjects for which these experts were appointed            E
      to re-examine claims of petitioners, were reported to be revised.
      6. In the subjects of General Knowledge (Paper-I) answers
      to five questions were required to be revised; in Paper-II
      (subject) in commerce answers of three questions were required
      to be revised; three questions in subject Geography, Two                F
      Questions in subject Hindi (Teaching method); in subject
      History one question; in subject Political Science four
      question; and in subject Rajasthani three questions were
      reported to be revised. A chart showing question numbers
      subject, answer in final key and new Expert Report is being             G
      filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (Pages 5) True
      and correct copies of reports of Experts in nine subjects is
      being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-2 (Pages
      6-46). It is stated that identity of Experts is not being
      disclosed. That on the basis of reports of the experts the
                                                                              H
990             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           result of candidates who have not been appointed was revised
            by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.”
             6. In the affidavit, it has also been stated that out of total number
      of posts in all the subjects, 729 candidates who were offered appointment
      did not join. Further, 316 candidates who were although selected but
B     their candidature were rejected. Thus in all 1045 posts remained vacant.
      A detailed chart subject wise showing all the details of posts advertised,
      candidates selected and recommended and appointments, number of
      candidates who did join and such candidates whose candidatures were
      rejected etc. has also been annexed alongwith the affidavit. It has been
      further stated in the affidavit that in the present batch of appeals, there
C     are in all 311 candidates. It is stated in the revised results prepared after
      Report by Experts Committee 48 petitioners from all the Special Leave
      Petitions are found to be in merit for selection, which candidates are
      spread over in nine subjects.
              7. A reply affidavit to the affidavit filed by Commission dated
D     14.04.2018 has also been filed in Civil Appeal of Richal & Ors. In the
      reply affidavit, it has been stated that the Commission has not disclosed
      the actual marks secured by the last selected candidate in terms of the
      first selection in various categories. It was stated that the Commission is
      required to prepare a Revised Notional Select List of candidates presently
E     selected in light of the revision undertaken by Experts based on actual
      marks secured by the last selected candidates in various categories.
      The appellants have also brought on record the copy of representation
      dated 23.01.2018 submitted by them after the order of this Court dated
      16.01.2018.

F            8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length
      as well as learned counsel appearing for the Commission, learned counsel
      appearing for the State of Rajasthan and learned counsel seeking
      impleadment and intervention.
             9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although
G     substantial grievances raised by the appellants in these appeals stand
      satisfied by the Expert Committee Report, which was appointed in
      pursuance of direction, there are still few grievances after revision carried
      out by the Experts. It is submitted that in revision also, certain mistakes
      have not been corrected. Learned counsel for the appellants in support
      of their submission has referred to few questions of Paper-I including
H     question No. 58 and certain other questions.
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                              991
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       10. One of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the      A
appellants is that the marks of 18 questions which were deleted from
paper No.1 were redistributed in the rest of the questions whereas the
marks should have been allocated to only those candidates who have
attempted such questions. Those candidates, who even did not attempt
those questions, were allocated the marks which was not in accordance
                                                                             B
with law. The marks should have been allocated only to those candidates
who attempted deleted questions, in alternative, it is submitted that full
marks with regard to 18 deleted questions ought to have been given to
all the candidates.
       11. Learned counsel for the Commission refuting the submissions
of the appellants submitted that almost all the grievances having been       C
taken care of by the Expert Committee and the result of non-selected
candidates having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered in
these appeals. It is submitted that Experts having revised the key answers
and having now submitted a Report, which has been accepted by the
Commission, this Court shall not permit the appellants to re-challenge       D
the decision of Expert Committee. It is submitted that out of all the
Special Leave Petitioners, only 48 have been found selected.
       12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the records.
        13. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of appeals      E
relates to correctness of final key answers as uploaded by the
Commission after considering objections thereto. The appellants’ case
is that the treatment of the objections by the Expert Committee was not
based on authoritative text books on the subject and several errors crept
into the answer key vitiating the merits of the candidates affecting the     F
entire selection.
      14. The issue pertaining to scope of judicial review of correctness
of key answer had been considered by this Court time and again. This
Court had entertained such challenges on very limited ground and has
always given due weight to the opinions of subject experts. A three          G
Judge Bench of this Court in Kanpur University, through Vice-
Chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, 1983 (4) SCC
309, had occasion to consider a case where challenge was made to the
key answers supplied by the paper-setter with regard to multiple choice
of the objective type test for admission in medical courses through
                                                                             H
992            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     combined Pre-Medical Test. The High Court while considering the
      challenge of the candidates to various key answers accepted the challenge
      to different questions. With regard to some of the questions the High
      Court held that the key answer is not the correct answer. This Court
      repelling the challenge made the following observations in paragraphs
      15 and 16:
B
              “15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of
            great importance to the student community. Normally, one
            would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a
            paper-setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished
            by the paper-setter and accepted by the University as correct,
C           should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving
            it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had
            not published the key answer along with the result             of
            the Test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But
            that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which
D           involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants
            for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were
            kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse
            than the disease because, so many students would have had
            to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key
            answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which
E           the University and the State Government must find a solution.
            Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given
            them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of
            examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the
            computer but the human system.
F             16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University,
            contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to
            the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is
            wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to
            be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should
G           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
H
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                          993
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those       A
      textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by
      the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.”
      12. Following the above judgment in Kanpur University (supra)
this Court in Manish Ujwal and others vs. Maharishi Dayanand
Saraswati University and others, 2005(13) SCC 744, reiterated the        B
principle in following words in paragraphs 9 and 10:
         “9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta considering a
      similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption
      about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt,
      the Court would unquestionably prefer the key answers. It is       C
      for this reason that we have not referred to those key answers
      in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of
      opinion between the experts. Regarding the key answers in
      respect whereof the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, this
      Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students
      for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer,        D
      that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be
      wrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six key answers
      being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been
      questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this
      view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and          E
      negligence of the University.
      10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming
      to the conclusion that “it cannot be said with certainty that
      answers to the six questions given in the key answers were
      erroneous and incorrect”. As already noticed, the key answers      F
      are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the
      matter, the student community, whether the appellants or
      intervenors or even those who did not approach the High
      Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of
      errors committed by the University. For the present, we say
      no more because there is nothing on record as to how this          G
      error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who
      was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to
      note that the University and those who prepare the key answers
      have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in
      these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of          H
994            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A           those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the
            student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being
            made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament
            of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if
            despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result
            of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the
B
            second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in
            educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher
            responsibility on the University while preparing the key
            answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in
            favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If
C           this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is
            adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be
            issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary
            action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably
            erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such
            directions in the present case.”
D
            13. To the same effect, this Court in Guru Nank Dev University
      vs. Saumil Garg and others, 2005(13) SCC 749, had directed the
      University to revaluate the answers of 8 questions with reference to key
      answers provided by CBSE. This Court also disapproved the course
      adopted by the University which has given the marks to all the students
E     who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someone
      had answered questions or not.
             14. Another judgment which is referred to is Rajesh Kumar and
      others vs. State of Bihar and others, 2013 (4) SCC 690, where this
      Court had occasion to consider the case pertaining to erroneous evaluation
F     using the wrong answer key. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission
      invited applications against the posts of Junior Engineer(Civil). Selection
      process comprised of a written objective type examination. Unsuccessful
      candidates assailed the selection. Single Judge of the High Court referred
      the “model answer key” to experts. Based on the report of the experts,
G     Single Judge held that 41 model answers out of 100 are wrong. The
      Single Judge held that the entire examination was liable to be cancelled
      and so also the appointments so made on the basis thereof. The Letters
      Patent Appeal was filed by certain candidates which was partly allowed
      by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench modified
      the order passed by the Single Judge and declared that the entire
H
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                              995
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

examination need not be cancelled. The order of Division Bench was           A
challenged wherein this Court in paragraph 19 has held:
      “19. The submissions made by Mr Rao are not without merit.
      Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most
      natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the
      scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-          B
      evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the
      circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh
      examination to be held by the Commission especially when
      there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or
      corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier
      examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The          C
      process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference
      to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart
      from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair
      advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the
      time lag between the examination earlier held and the one              D
      that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High
      Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a
      better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
       15. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining
body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err       E
is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the
incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve
transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the
correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against
the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness
and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to      F
be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any,
should be taken by the examining body. In the present case we have
noted that after considering the objections final key answers were
published by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filed
challenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by the                G
Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the views
of the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this
Court by filing these appeals.
       16. This Court while hearing the appeals found substance in some
of the submissions raised before us and appellants having satisfied this     H
996            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     Court that certain questions need re-examination by experts, this Court
      issued directions on 16.01.2018. As noted above, pursuant to the directions
      of this Court the Expert Committee re-examined the questions with regard
      to which objections were raised in these appeals. After the order of this
      Court dated 16.01.2018 the Commission adopted Expert Committee
      Report which re-examined the questions with regard to which objections
B
      were raised before us in these appeals. An affidavit dated 17.04.2018
      has been filed by the Commission. The affidavit contains the following
      statements:
              (i) on the basis of the Report of Experts, Answers to 22
            Questions across 9 subjects were corrected and revised. [p.2-
C           3 pr.6 of Affidavit ] [Chart has been annexed at p.5]
            (ii) A perusal of the Revision conducted by Experts w.r.t.
            Questions in Paper I (General Awareness & General Studies)
            as per Chart [p.5 of Affidavit] reveals that:
D               (a) Experts accepted Petitioner’s Representation and
                retained 3 questions (Q Nos. 53, 57, 60) of 18 earlier
                deleted questions.
                (b) Experts accepted Petitioners’ Representation and
                corrected the answer of 1 question (Q.No.3) in the
E               remaining 57 questions.
                (c) Experts rejected Petitioners’ Representation seeking
                correction of answer of 5 questions (Q. Nos. 25, 28, 33,
                49, 58).
            (iii) RPSC has stated that out of the total number of Advertised
F           posts(13,098) 1045 vacancies in the post of School Lecturers
            still exist. [p.3 pr.7 of Affidavit] [Chart has been annexed at
            p.47]
            (iv) RPSC has stated that 48 of 311 Special Leave Petitioners
            before this Hon’ble Court are within merit for selection as
G           School Lecturers after revision of their answer scripts.[p.3-4
            pr.8 of Affidavit]
            17. By our order dated 02.04.2018, we have directed to supply
      the Report of the Expert Committee to all the parties. The copies of the
      Report have been supplied. During the course of hearing, learned counsel
H
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                              997
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

for the appellants submitted that substantial grievances raised in these     A
appeals have been redressed by the Expert Committee. The
representations made by the appellants have been substantially accepted
as noted above. However, learned counsel for the appellants have
contended that certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still
not correct. Before us certain questions have been pointed out which
                                                                             B
according to the appellants have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the
Expert Committee. It shall suffice to refer to the question No.58 of
paper No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the Expert
Committee has accepted option No.4 as correct option whereas correct
option is option NO.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has to make
his point home has placed before us the following chart:                     C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




      18. At the time of hearing on 24.04.2018, at the first blush, we
also observed that there may be substance in what is contended by the        G
learned counsel for the appellants with regard to question No.21, however,
when we thoroughly examined the question and its answer given by the
Expert Committee, we are inclined to agree with the answer given by
the Expert Committee. The reason for our accepting the opinion of the
                                                                             H
998             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A     Expert Committee is as follows: The question No.58 which was asked
      was:”Minimum Number of Working Hours per week for the teacher
      in RTE Act, 2009 is”.
             19. Thus answer had to indicate the number of working hours.
      Notification has been issued under the RTE Act where minimum teaching
B     hours for a week is mentioned as : “45 Teaching including Preparation
      Hours”. Thus minimum number of working hours per week has been
      provided as 45 which figure includes both teaching and preparation hours.
      The statutory provision uses the word teaching including preparation
      hours whereas answer uses the words teaching plus preparation
      hours. There is no dispute that figure 45 is a correct figure only issue is
C     with regard to whether option No.3 is correct or option No.4. Option
      No.3 mentions “45 Teaching Hours”. The answer No.3 is obviously
      not according to the statutory prescription which provides “45 Teaching
      including Preparation Hours”. Correct answer, thus, is option No.4
      which mentions “45 Teaching plus preparation hours”. Instead of
D     using the word including as used in statutory provision the answer
      uses word plus. When the figure 45 includes teaching as well as
      preparation hours the use of word teaching plus preparation hours
      connotes the same meaning. We, thus do not find any substance in the
      above submission.
E            20. Learned counsel for the appellants have also pointed out several
      other questions in paper No.1 which according to the learned counsel
      for the appellants have not been correctly answered by the Expert
      Committee. We have considered few more questions as pointed out and
      perused the answers given by the Expert Committee and we are of the
      view that no error can be found with the answers of the Expert Committee
F     with regard to three more questions which have been pointed out before
      us. The Expert Committee, constituted to validation of answer key, has
      gone through every objection raised by the appellants and has satisfactorily
      answered the same. The Commission has also accepted the Report of
      the Expert Committee and has proceeded to revised the result of 311
G     appellants before us. We, thus, are of the view that Report of the Expert
      Committee which has been accepted by the Commission need to be
      implemented.
              21. One of the submissions raised by the appellants is that marks
      of deleted questions ought not to have been redistributed in other questions.
H     It is submitted that either all the candidates should have been given equal
  RICHAL v. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION                                 999
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

marks for all the deleted questions or marks ought to have been given           A
only to those candidates who attempted those questions.
       22. The questions having been deleted from the answers, the
question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted
questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot
be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The Commission has adopted a             B
uniform method to deal with all the candidates looking to the number of
the candidates. We are of the view that all the candidates have been
benefited by the redistributed of marks in accordance with the number
of correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do not
find any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted marks. The
High Court has rightly approved the said methodology.                           C

       23. In the affidavit filed by the Commission it is mentioned that
the result has been revised of only 311 appellants who are before this
Court. We are of the view that key answers having been corrected,
merit of all the candidates except those who have already been selected
needs to be redetermined. In our order dated 16.01.2018 it is mentioned         D
that this exercise shall not affect those who have already been selected.
We, thus, are of the view that the Commission should revise the entire
result of all the candidates except those who have been selected on the
basis of the report of Expert Committee and publish revise result of all
the candidates. When the key answers are correct of the candidates              E
who appeared in the examination, they are entitled for revision of their
result, since, fault does not lie with the candidates but lies with the
examination body. It shall not be equitable to not extend the benefit to
those candidates who have not come to the Court being satisfied with
the steps taken by the Commission and its earlier Expert Committee
which was given the task of revising the key answers.                           F

      24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of these
appeals with the following directions:
       (1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revise
the result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the basis of   G
Report of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of our order
dated 16.01.2018 and publish the revised result.
       (2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need not
revise the result of all those candidates whose names were included in
the Select List earlier published. We having already pointed out that the
                                                                                H
1000                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 6 S.C.R.


 A     appointments shall not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity
       to revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be undertaken excluding
       all the candidates who are included in the Select List.
              (3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks of the
       last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included
 B     in the Select List on the basis of which appointments have been made by
       the Commission.
             (4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieve
       equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered
       appointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by the
 C     Commission in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above.
             (5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making
       recommendations for appointments shall be completed by the Commission
       within a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessary
       consequential steps thereafter.
 D
       Ankit Gyan                                               Appeals disposed of.




 E




 F




 G




 H