Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

DECISION

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners, by way of this writ petition, assail the result dated 14th May, 2020 and waiting list result dated 14th May, 2020, for the post of Assistant Statistical Officer. After selection process having been conducted under the advertisement dated 28th March, 2018 for 209 posts of Assistant Statistical Officer in Planning Department under Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, read with dated 23.12.2019.

2. The process of selection was based on written examination carrying maximum 100 marks consisting of multiple choice objective type questions of 100 marks.

3. The written examination was conducted on 27th May, 2019 and a provisional list was published of the candidates for eligibility checking on 3.1.2020 for 1.5 times of the number of vacancies in TSP and Non-TSP area, who were called for document verification.

4. The cut off marks for Open (General) Category was declared as 56.01 marks and for OBC (General) Category, the cut off marks was declared as 52.92 and the final result was declared on 14th May, 2020 which is impugned in this writ petition.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the result was declared. They found that there is vast difference between cut off marks of Open (General) Category in the provisional list and the main list and also in the waiting list, which is unpredictable, improbable and inconceivable.

6. It is submitted that such vast difference could have only be on account of leakage of paper. There had been rumour of leakage of paper earlier, which has now come true. The petitioners are sure that there has been a leakage as the candidates who belong to a particular community and a particular district have been placed at the top rank scoring 90% marks. The examples have been given of some persons, who are belonging to Rajput Community and have scored above 90% marks.

7. Counsel for the petitioners states that for the first 70 seats of General Category of main list, cut off marks comes to 71.82 marks, which is approximately 17% higher than the provisional cut off marks and for the next 50% vacancies, the cut off has fallen to 54.98 marks, which is lessor than provisional list. He therefore submits that the only logical conclusion, which can be drawn, is that the leakage of paper during conducting of examination has been taken place.

8. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2103/2020) decided on 8.4.2020 to submit that the result for the date of 14th May, 2020 and the examination conducted on 27th May, 2019 be declared illegal and arbitrary as the selection process does not seem to be fair and transparent selection. It is also prayed that a detailed enquiry from the Special Operation Group (SOG) directed to be made.

9. I have con

ssidered the submissions as above.

10. On a pointed query made to the counsel for the petitioners whether any complaint was filed after the examination was conducted on 27th May, 2019. He has stated that the petitioners could only infer leakage of paper after the final result was declared and since there was only simple rumors earlier, the petitioners did not file any complaint. It is submitted that a presumption should be drawn by this court only on the basis of marks obtained by the persons and their academic records of Class-X, XII, Graduation and Post-Graduation to be concluded that the marks obtained in the present examination for post of Assistant Statistical Officer are based on leakage of paper. It is submitted that candidates could not have obtained such marks at all.

11. Learned counsel has taken this court to the tables of which he has prepared and placed as part of the writ petition showing names of the candidates and their marks.

12. I have considered the submissions and carefully examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The examination process was based on objective type of question paper where candidate is required to obtain requisite marks. One of the option as he deems fit to be correct answer is required to be indicated, in such objective type question paper, therefore, there is always possibility of 100% correct answers. There can be several candidates receiving same number of marks also.

14. From the perusal of the marks allotted, it appears that RPSC after adopting negative marking has given marks to the candidate in-decimal like cut off for GEN is 56.01 marks and GEN(WE) 54.64 marks and so and so. Similarly marks as mentioned by the petitioners in example placed on record, are also in-decimal like the candidate, who has scored at No. 1 i.e. Kishan Singh, who has scored 93.13% marks, which means that there is addition and subtraction on the basis of negative marks, deletion of question etc. which is in exclusive domain of the Examining Body. The petitioners could not challenge the method and procedure adopted by the RPSC for giving marks to the candidates till the same are transparent an applied universally to all.

15. The only argument, which is being advanced and require to be considered is whether a presumption can be drawn of leakage of papers on account of there being vast difference and the marks obtained by same candidates and others in the main list and in the waiting list and also between the cut off of General Category and OBC Category. It is thus submitted that it would be logical to be presumed of leakage of paper. The arguments may be attractive but the same require to be rejected at the very threshold. The presumption as suggested by the learned counsel cannot be drawn in law by this court that certain candidates had an access to the question paper. It is noticed that there is neither any objection nor even any doubt cast by the petitioners on the examination prior to the final result was declared.

16. One of the submissions of learned counsel is that it should be logically presumed that if a candidate had not been faring well in his school days and in the graduation, he cannot suddenly score a very high marks in an objective type question paper. However, the principle of logical interpretation are not directly applicable to draw legal conclusions.

17. Emmerson, who was not an stranger to the study of law, states "Men are wiser than they know. You cannot hire logic, in the shape of Lawyer, to prove anything that you want to prove".

18. In an article published in 'Harvard Law Review' on "Place of Logic in Law", the author-Morris R. Cohen states:-

"Like other useful instruments, logic is very dangerous, and it requires great wisdom to use it properly. A logical science of law can help us digest our legal material, but we must get our food before we can digest it. The law draws its sap from feelings of justice and social need. It has grown and been improved by sensitively minded judges attending to the conflicting claims of the various interests before them, and leaving it to subsequent developments to demonstrate the full wisdom or un-wisdom of the decision. The intellectualist would have the judge certain of everything before deciding, but this is impossible. Like other human efforts, the law must experiment, which always involves a leap into the dark future. But for that very reason the judge's feelings as to right and wrong must be logically and scientifically trained. The trained mind sees in a flash of intuition that which the untrained mind can succeed in seeing only after painfully treading many steps. They who scorn the idea of the judge as a logical automaton are apt to fall into the opposite error of exaggerating as irresistible the force of bias or prejudice. But the judge who realizes that all men are biased before listening to a case, is more likely to make a conscientious effort at impartiality than one who believes that elevation to the bench makes him at once an organ of infallible logical truth."

19. It is a well settled that once, a candidate has participated in the selection and examination process is completely over and final result is declared, he/she cannot be turned around and challenged the same after its completion with regard to the aspect of examination. The law in this regard has been settled finally by the Supreme Court in the case of "MCD Vs. Surendra Singh" MANU/SC/1017/2019 : 2019(8) SCC 67. In the said case, the selection process was challenged and fixing of cut off marks was also assailed wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

"18. From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cutoff marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, the DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cutoff percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private respondents herein and the other petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard."

(Highlighting of mine)

20. The judgment in the case of Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioners would have no application to the present facts of the case as the same is relating to completely a different situation where the criteria of the examination was changed by the Chairman and the candidates, who were not applied under original advertisement, were allowed to participate, which was found to be unjustified by the Supreme Court. The facts of the present case do not have any relation to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

21. This court is of further view that a petition cannot be entertained on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. There is no factual basis of the allegations as levelled in the petition. Merely because some candidates have scored higher marks and they all belong to a particular community, would not be a ground to cancel the entire examination. It is also noticed that candidates, who have scored higher marks, do not belong to a particular place or from the same examination centre and therefore, the presumption of leakage of paper in the aforesaid circumstances cannot be remotely drawn.

22. The writ petition is solely with a purpose to challenge the selection there is no averment relating to the petitioners own marks as to how they can be selected. The prayer for cancellation of the result and also cancellation of examination are found to be wholly based on the surmises and conjectures. Attempt has been made to scandalize the entire selection process without any basis.

23. In view of the findings above, this Court finds that the writ petition is wholly frivolous and without any basis and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 1 lacs (Rupees: One Lac Only) to be deposited with the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority and to be borne equally by all the petitioners.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.