[2023/RJJD/003583]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 847/2022

1. Suman D/o Durga Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Bhambhuo

Ki Dhani, Mansagar, Danwara, Tehsil Baori, District
Jodhpur.
2. Sarjeet Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Vpo Dayal, Teshil Didwana, District Nagaur.
3. Yajuvendra Singh S/o Keshar Singh Deora, Aged About 32
Years, Vo Dabani, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.
4. Pramila Kumari D/o Manohar Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Dhoti, Post Kaldeh, Tehsil Bhim, District
Rajsamand.
5. Dhanna Ram Sangwa S/o Shivlal, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Dhorelaw, Post Netdiya, Tehsil Merta City, District
Nagaur.
6. Vijay Adoliya S/o Madan Lal Regar, Aged About 21 Years,
Regar Mohalla, Kelwa, District Rajsamand.
7. Sonu Suwalka D/o Ramprasad Suwalka, Aged About 21
Years, In Front Of New Bus Stand, Shahpura, District
Bhilwara.
8. Mukesh Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years,
Bhartava Ka Bera, Village Daman, Post Kaleti, Tehsil
Bagoda, District Jalore.
9. Monika Kumari D/o Adesh Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
10. Purba Ram S/o Ram Chandra, Aged About 23 Years,
Kukano Ki Dhani, Village Alay, District Nagaur.
11. Shrawan Kumar S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
110 Ramdev Mohalla, Sadalwa, Post Kotbaliyan, Tehsil
Bali, District Pali.
12. Hari Ram S/o Peera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Village
Mewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
13. Shivani Bhatt D/o Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt, Aged About
22 Years, Rathore Gali, Vijaipur, District Chittorgarh.
14. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 23 Years,
Vpo Janana, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
15. Manisha D/o Bala Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Village
Anupsahar, District Hanumangarh.

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (2 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Animal Husbandry Department,
Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Through The Chairman Of The Board,
Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Of The Rajasthan Subordinate And
Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, on behalf of Mr.
Chaitanya Gahlot
: Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG
Mr. Vineet Sanadhya
Mr. Anil Sen
Mr. H.P. Sharma, Chairman, Rajasthan
State Staff Selection Board, through
VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Order

02/02/2023

Through this intra court appeal under Article 225 of the

Constitution of India read with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High

Court Rules, the appellants-writ petitioners herein seek to assail

the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench,

whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners questioning

the answer key proposed by the respondents for the Live Stock

Assistant Recruitment-2022 was dismissed.

After examining the matter in detail, the learned Single

Bench culled down the controversy to the question No.38 of the

question paper, which reads as below :-

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (3 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

"38. Which of the following places has

Rajasthan’s largest thermal power
station?
(A) Chhabra
(B) Suratgarh
(C) Kota
(D)Kalisindh

fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdl LFkku ij jktLFkku dk

lcls cM+k FkeZy ikoj LVs’ku gS\
(A) NkcM+k
(B) lwjrx<+
(C) dksVk
(D) dkyhfla/k"

The answer to the said question was initially proposed

as (B) Suratgarh, which was changed by the expert committee to

option (A) Chhabra in the final answer key. The writ petitioners

questioned the said decision of the expert committee and the

change of option from (B) to (A) by filing the captioned writ

petition, which came to be rejected as indicated above. Hence,

this appeal.

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the

learned counsel for the appellants drew the court's attention to

the question paper of the examination conducted by the

respondent Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for the Basic

Computer Operator Recruitment -2022, wherein, the very same

question was proposed as question No.42. The answer to this

question as adopted by the Board is admittedly (A) Suratgarh as

per the answer key attached to the question paper.

A comparison of the contemporary questions would be

relevant for deciding the controversy and hence, question No.42 of

the Basic Computer Operator Recruitment -2022 is reproduced

hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (4 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

"42. Which is the biggest Thermal Power Station of

Rajasthan?
(A) Suratgarh Thermal
(B) Kota Thermal
(C) Giral Thermal
(D) Barsingsar Thermal
42. dkSulk jktLFkku dk lcls cM+k rkih; fo|qr xzg gS \
(A) Lkwjrx< FkeZy
(B) dksVk FkeZy
(C) fxjy FkeZy
(D) cjflaglj FkeZy "

Considering the above submission of the appellants'

counsel to be relevant, this court passed the following order on

19.01.2023:-

"The controversy in this litigation is regarding the

answer adopted by the respondents to the question
No.38 of the subject question paper, which reads as
below :-

38. Which of the following places has

Rajasthan’s largest thermal power
station?
(A) Chhabra
(B) Suratgarh
(C) Kota
(D)Kalisindh

fuEufyf[kr esa ls fdl LFkku ij jktLFkku dk

lcls cM+k FkeZy ikoj LVs’ku gS\
(A) NkcM+k
(B) lwjrx<+
(C) dksVk

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (5 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

(D) dkyhfla/k

The appellants claim that the correct answer

to this question, as per the installation capacity of the
Thermal Power Station, is “Suratgarh”, whereas the
respondents have accepted the answer “Chhabra” as
correct answer.
During the course of arguments, learned
counsel for the appellants drew the court’s attention to
the question paper of the examination conducted in the
year 2022 by the same body, i.e. the Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, for the posts of Basic Computer
Operator, wherein question No.42 is exactly the same
as question No.38 of the present recruitment. It is
submitted that in that examination, which was
conducted merely 15 days after the recruitment at
hand, the Board has accepted “Suratgarh” as correct
answer. It is also submitted that the expert report on
which the respondents place reliance for accepting the
answer “Chhabra” is in itself vague and misleading.
Learned counsel Mr. Sanadhya shall file an
affidavit of the Chairman of the Recruitment Board to
explain this apparent anomaly.
Renotify on 24.01.2023."

Consequent to the said direction, affidavit of Chairman

of the Staff Selection Board was filed wherein, it is asserted that

two options including Chhabra were given in question No.38 of the

question paper in Livestock Assistant Selection and acting on the

opinion of the expert committee, option (A) Chhabra was

considered as correct answer, but as option Chhabra was not

available in the question No.42 of the Basic Computer Operator

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (6 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

Recruitment -2022, wherein, option (A) Suratgarh was selected,

being the best answer amongst all answers.

Since no comparative analysis of the two questions (38

and 42 of the respective papers) was done, by the experts, this

Court felt that the affidavit did not satisfy the query posed vide

the order dated 19.01.2023 and thus, on 24.01.2023 learned

counsel Shri Vineet Sanadya, representing the Staff Selection

Board, suggested that it would be better to get the issue

examined afresh through a newly constituted expert committee.

Consequent there to, the expert committee was again constituted

which has given the report dated 31.01.2023 which has been

submitted for the Court's perusal by Shri Sanadhya today. It

would be apposite to reproduce the report of the expert

committee for the sake of ready reference.

"In pursuance of office order vide no.478 dated 25-01-

2023 issued by Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur,
We the Experts present today i.e. 31-01-2023 at 11:00
am in the office of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board,
Jaipur, The RSSB has apprised us that A writ petition
no 847/2022 is pending in the Hon’ble High Court of
Rajasthan at Jodhpur regarding to the question number
38 [According to Master question Paper] for Livestock
Assistant Direct Recruitment Exam-2022.

Here it is relevant to mention the question no.38,

“38. Which of the following places has Rajasthan’s
Largest thermal power station?
[A] Chhara [B] Suratgarh
[C] Kota [D] Kalisindh

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (7 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

न मन न त म स क स स पर र जस सबस बड म प वर स श
ह?
[A] छ बड [B] सूरतगढ
[C] ो [D] !ससध"
We have re-examined the answer of above
question, we have addressed the issue in detail and
gone through the material regarding experts answer,
objections raised by the candidates on Primary Answer
Key, Expert opinion on this question of the previous
experts. After thoughtful consideration we have
reached on this conclusion that the right answer of this
question is option ‘A’ [Chhabra]. References for the
option ‘A’ [Chhabra] are as under:

1. jktLFkku dk Hkwxksy] ys[kd% MkW- gfj eksgu lDlsuk] laLdj.k

2022] ist 196
2- jktLFkku dk Hkwxksy] ys[kd% MkW- ,y-vkj- HkYyk] laLdj.k 2023] ist
118 & 119
3- jktLFkku Kku & forku] ys[kd% MkW] loZneu feJ] laLdj.k 2022]
ist 381

Signature of Expert [1st] Signature of Expert [2nd]

(Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sabal) (Sh. Suresh Chandra Jat)
Associate Professor Assistant Professor

Shri Bhanwariya, learned counsel representing the

petitioner, has also placed on record a copy of the communication

dated 26.07.2022 provided by the RRVUNL (Rajasthan Rajya

Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited) being the parent company of both

the thermal power station i.e. Chhabra and Suratgarh wherein, it

is clearly indicated that the largest thermal power plant of

Rajasthan is at Suratgarh with its total power generation capacity

being 2820 MW. In the very same communication, it is mentioned

that the total power generation capacity of Chhabra is 2320 MW.

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (8 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

There cannot be two views on the aspect that when the

answer is sought to the question as to which is the largest/biggest

thermal power station in Rajasthan, the result cannot be variable.

The use of adjectives "largest" and "biggest" in the questions

would imply that the answer should identify the thermal power

plant with reference to the generation. There cannot be two

largest power stations in the State unless the production capacity

is stated to be identical and in that event, there would be more

than one correct answer to the question. It is only for this reason,

that this Court felt that there was an apparent anomaly in the

approach of the Staff Selection Board wherein, qua the

recruitment of the Live Stock Assistants (the present case) the

option (A) Chhabra was substituted for the earlier provided option

(B) Suratgarh and in the selection examination for the Basic

Computer Operator Recruitment-2022 conducted just a few days

later, option (A) Suratgarh considered as the correct answer with

both questions being identical. While passing the order dated

19.01.2023, it was clearly indicated that the Board shall seek the

expert opinion with comparative analysis of the contemporary

questions in the two selection examinations. However, a perusal

of the report dated 31.01.2023 reproduced hereinabove, would

clearly indicate that the question as posed in the Basic Computer

Operator Recruitment -2022 was either not brought to the notice

of the expert panel or the same was intentionally ignored from

consideration. A perusal of the report reflects sheer avoidance the

pertinent query posed by the Court in the order dated 19.01.2023.

Shri H.P. Sharma, the Chairman of the Board has joined

the hearing through video conferencing. He tried to persuade the

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (9 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

Court that both the question papers were indeed placed before the

expert committee, but the committee on it's own discretion has

given it's opinion only regarding question No.38 of the Live Stock

Assistant paper.

We are clearly of the view that there has been a

calculated attempt of ignoring this Court's pertinent direction. The

other eventuality is that the Board's officials suffer from sheer

incompetence. The Board has been constituted to carry out

recruitment's for various Government jobs in State of Rajasthan.

Unemployed youth appear in the examinations and the

discrepancies left in the question papers shatter their aspirations

and diminish their prospects as many of them loose out because

of anomalies/uncertainties in the evaluation process. Huge

expenses are incurred and precious time is lost when the results

are quashed/reversed. The Staff Selection Board is supposed to be

an expert body and there is no room for such fundamental

anomalies being left in the question papers framed by it.

Opportunity was given to the Board officials to act rationally and

to make an objective comparative analysis of identical questions

asked in two different examinations conducted by it, but the

consideration so made is absolutely perfunctory.

At this stage, and while the order was being dictated,

learned counsel Shri Sanadhya submitted that the Board is ready

to rectify its error and as a consequence, the affidavit forwarded

by the Chairman of the Staff Selection Board through e-mail has

been placed on record, the relevant part where of is extracted

below:-

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (10 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

1. That the present special has arisen out of the

judgment dated 28.09.2022 dismissing the writ petition
preferred by the appellants-petitioners challenging the
final answer key issued by the Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board in the recruitment of Livestock
Assistant-2022. In the instant appeal, the appellants
chosen to agitate against only question No.38 of the
master question paper.
2. That during arguments taken place on 02.02.2023
and the undersigned has also attended the proceedings
through video conferencing. It appeared during the
proceedings that there is an error in finalizing the
answer of question no.38 by the respondent board,
which was based upon the expert reports. And looking
to the matter in hand the answering respondent is
going to rectify the same with immediate effect."

However, having seen the lackadaisical manner in which the Board

officials have dealt with such a sensitive matter, we are not

inclined to leave any loose ends and propose to decide the

controversy on merits.

It is clear as daylight that exactly identical questions

Nos.38 and 42 were posed in two different selection examinations

conducted by the Board, of which, the result can only be

Suratgarh. However, different answers have been approved in the

results which makes it clear that the Board has not acted

rationally while changing the answer to the question No.38 of the

Live Stock Assistant Recruitment Examination from Suratgarh to

Chhabra. This conclusion is fortified by the reply given by the

RRVUNL, the Parent Company of both the power stations, i.e.

Suratgarh and Chhabra, to the query made under the RTI Act.

This response of the Corporation is reproduced hereinbelow for the

sake of ready reference :-

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

[2023/RJJD/003583] (11 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

dz- fo"k; mRrj

l-
1. jktLFkku dk lcls cM+k FkeZy ikoj
IykaV dk uke (May 2022)
2. lqjrx<+ FkeZy ikoj IykaV dh
bULVky ,uthZ rFkk fdrus ,fj;k esa
bldk foLrkj gS (May 2022) rd
MsVk miyC/k djok,W
3- NcM+k FkeZy ikoj IykaV dh bULVky
,uthZ rFkk fdrus ,fj;k esa bldk foLrkj
gS (May 2022) rd MsVk miyC/k
djok,W
4. foHkkx n~okjk FkeZy ikoj IykaV dk
oxhZdj.k fdu fdu vk/kkjksa ij fd;k
x;k gS] mldk lEiw.kZ fooj.k myC/k
djok,WA
jkT; {ks= esa jktLFkku jkT; fo|qr mRiknu fuxe ds LFkkfir
fo|qr x`gksa @ ifj;kstukvksa dk mudh dqy vf/k"Bkfir fo|qr
mRiknu {kerk ds vk/kkj Ikj oxhZdj.k djus ij ebZ 2022 esa
lwjrx<+ ftyk Jhxaxkuxj esa LFkkfir lwjrx<+ FkeZy ikoj
LVs'ku] bdkbZ 1 ls 6 (mRiknu {kerk 1500 esxkokV) ,oa blds
foLrkj esa LFkkfir lwjrx<+ lqij fdzfVdy FkeZy ikoj
ifj;kstuk bdkbZ 7 ,oa 8 (mRiknu {kerk 1320 esxkokV) dks
lfEefyr djus ij dqy 2820 esxkokV vf/k"Bkfir fo|qr
mRiknu {kerk ds vk/kkj ij jkT; {ks= esa fuxe dk lcls cM+k
FkeZy ikoj IykaV gSaA
lwjrx<+ FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku] bdkbZ 1 ls 6 (mRiknu {kerk
1500 esxkokV) ,oa blds foLrkj esa LFkkfir lwjrx<+ lqij
fdzfVdy FkeZy ikoj ifj;kstuk] bdkbZ 7 ,oa 8 (mRiknu
{kerk 1320 esxkokV) dks lfEefyr djus ij ebZ 2022 eas dqy
2820 esxkokV vf/k"Bkfir fo|qr mRiknu {kerk gSaA
NcM+k FkeZy ikoj LVs'ku] bdkbZ 1 ls 4 (mRiknu {kerk 1000
esxkokV) ,oa blds foLrkj esa LFkkfir NcM+k lqij fdzfVdy
FkeZy ikoj ifj;kstuk bdkbZ 5 ,oa 6 (mRiknu {kerk 1320
esxkokV) dks lfEefyr djus ij dqy 2320 esxkokV vf/k"Bkfir
fo|qr mRiknu {kerk gSA
foHkkx n~okjk FkeZy ikoj IykaV dk oxhZdj.k fo|qr mRiknu esa
mi;ksx vkus okys bZa/ku (dks;yk @ fyXukbZV @ xSl),
rduhdh (lqijfdzfVdy@ lcfdzfVdy@ vYVk
lqijfdzfVdy) rFkk bdkbZ dh vf/k"Bkfir {kerk ds vk/kkj ij
fd;k x;k gS] ftldk lEiw.kZ fooj.k fuxe dh osclkbZV
www.energy.rajasthan.gov.in ij miyC/k gSaA

On a perusal of the reply so provided by the Company,

it is crystal clear that Suratgarh is definitely the largest thermal

power plant in the State of Rajasthan and Chhabra lags behind by

a measure of 500 MW in the production capacity.

In view of the above discussion, the decision of the

respondents in adopting option No.(A) Chhabra to the Question

No.38 in the final answer key of Live Stock Assistant Recruitment-

2022 is declared to be invalid and hereby reversed.

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Bench dated 28.09.2022 is also reversed.

The answer (B) Suratgarh adopted in the preliminary

answer key is the correct answer to the question No.38 and thus,

the result shall be revised by adopting the said answer. The

answer key and the reshuffled result/merit list to be prepared as a

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

 [2023/RJJD/003583] (12 of 12) [SAW-847/2022]

consequence of the above revision shall be declared and uploaded

on the website of the Board at the earliest.

The appeal is allowed in these terms.

No order as to costs.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

49-Dharmendra/ Pramod/-

(Downloaded on 03/07/2024 at 08:25:33 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)