Narendra Kumar Sharma, Son Of Shri Ramkhilari Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18368 / 2016 Narendra Kumar Sharma, Son of Shri Ramkhilari Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, 96, Income Tax Colony, Near Ramnagariya, Jagatpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer ----RespondentAND S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 18369 / 2016 Gopal Lal Ladda Son of Bhanwarlal Ladda, Aged About 27 Years, Village Meharana, Post Tirath Tehsil and District Bundi, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Sh. Vijay Poonia Adv.For Respondent(s) : _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Order 18/01/2017 Instant petitions have been filed for re-examining thequestions no.74 & 76 of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services(Combined Competitive Examination by Direct Recruitment) and inthe earlier round of litigation, the dispute was raised with regardto questions no.74, 76, 99, 58 & 53 but the Coordinate Bench onappreciation of the material on record took note of questionsno.74 & 76 and while disposing of the batch of writ petitions observed as under :- “Having given a prima-facie opinion, taking intoconsideration three Schemes propagated andpublished by the State of Rajasthan, which havebeen produced before this Court by Mr.Saxena, ld.A.A.G. and the stand taken by him, this Court shallnot out-rightly reject the opinion of experts, butwith due deference shall call upon them to re-examine their opinion in light of Schemes taken onrecord as A-1-A-2 qua Question Nos.74 and 76. Mr.Baig, counsel for the ‘RPSC; is directed to obtainNaya Savera Scheme taken on record as A-1 andBhamashah Yojna Scheme taken on record as A-2from the office of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) afterfiling an undertaking that he shall remain the sameafter perusal by the experts. The Experts after,going through the Schemes may revise the answerto the Question Nos.74 and 76. In case, the expertscame to a conclusion that the result of AnswerNos.74 and 76 is to be revised, as per the SchemeAnnexure A-1 and A- 2, which have been handedover to Mr.Baig, the revised answer to questionNos.74 and 76 thereafter, shall be uploaded on theweb-site of the Rajasthan Public ServiceCommission. Needful be done by the experts and RPSC within aweek from the receipt of certified copy of this order.Needless to say, in case experts modify theiropinion regarding answer to the question Nos.74and 76, Rajasthan Public Service Commission shallrevise the result. Upon disposal of main petitions, the stayapplications filed therewith, do not survive and the same are also disposed of. Let a copy of this order, under the seal andsignature of the Court Master, be handed over toMr.M.F.Baig, for onward transmission and necessarycompliance.” On re-examining/revisiting both the two questions of which reference has been made, the expert committee revisited both thetwo questions no.74 & 76 and find no change in the result of boththe two questions. Counsel submits that the material on record conspicuouslyindicates that what is being observed by the expert committee inits report needs further re-appreciation by this Court. The question raised in the instant writ petitions has beenexamined by this Court in CWP-643/2017 (Shivram SinghChoudhary Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) and after detailed discussionof the grievance, dismissed the writ petition vide order dt.13-1-2017. In the light of the order passed in CWP-643/2017 dt.13-1-2017 this Court finds no substance in the instant petitions and thesame are accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be separatelyplaced in each file. (AJAY RASTOGI)J. Shekhawatvs(D55-D56)