RPSC Selection Process and Validity of Answer Key: Supreme Court’s Decision on Senior Teacher Posts

This case concerns the challenge filed by Vikesh Kumar Gupta and others (the petitioners) against the selection process for Senior Teacher (Grade II) posts in Social Science, conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). The petitioners were aggrieved by their non-selection, despite appearing in the written exams and being included in the initial merit list. The dispute revolves around the correctness of the answer keys used in the examination, particularly the modification of the answer keys and its effect on the final selection list.

Background of the Case

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement in 2016 for the recruitment of 9,551 Senior Teachers (Grade II) in various subjects, including Social Science. The written examinations were conducted in 2017, and the first answer key was released in 2018. Following objections from several candidates, the RPSC revised the answer key and published the second answer key in 2018. The merit list was revised accordingly, but the petitioners were excluded from the revised list despite being included in the initial list.

The petitioners, who were aggrieved by this, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the revised merit list and the answer key used by the RPSC. The High Court, after hearing the case, directed the RPSC to reconsider certain questions in the answer key and issue a revised list. However, the petitioners still remained excluded, and their appeals were subsequently dismissed by the High Court. This led to their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners presented several key arguments in their appeal to the Supreme Court:

• Incorrect Answer Key: The petitioners argued that the second answer key published by the RPSC contained several incorrect answers that negatively impacted their scores. They emphasized that the revision of the answer key was not adequately conducted, and some crucial mistakes in the key remained unaddressed.
• Partial Benefit of Revised Key: The petitioners contended that the benefit of the third answer key, which corrected certain errors, was not extended to them. They argued that the RPSC had failed to apply the corrected answer key to all candidates uniformly, which led to their exclusion from the revised merit list.
• Violation of Procedural Fairness: The petitioners argued that the process of revision and the manner in which the answer keys were handled lacked transparency and fairness. They also claimed that the delay in the process led to unnecessary confusion and uncertainty among candidates.
• Inadequate Consideration of Evidence: The petitioners pointed out that the High Court did not adequately consider the factual evidence of their eligibility and the errors in the answer key. They argued that the Court’s dismissal of their claims was unjust and should be revisited.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, represented by the RPSC and the State of Rajasthan, made the following counterarguments:

• Correctness of the Answer Key: The respondents contended that the second answer key was correct and that all errors identified in the initial key were rectified. They argued that the revised key was thoroughly vetted by an expert committee, and the merit list was based on this corrected key, which was final.
• Transparent Selection Process: The respondents argued that the selection process was transparent and that the revised merit list was prepared in accordance with the legal and procedural guidelines. They emphasized that all candidates were given equal opportunity to challenge the answers and raise objections.
• Delay and Finality of Selection: The respondents pointed out that the petitioners had not raised their objections at the appropriate time and had failed to challenge the process in a timely manner. They argued that allowing the petitioners’ appeal at this late stage would disrupt the entire selection process and the appointments already made.
• Implementation of Court Orders: The respondents also highlighted that the orders of the High Court had been implemented correctly, and the revised merit list was based on the updated answer key. They submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief, as they were not selected on merit.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court carefully reviewed the arguments made by both parties. It considered the following aspects:

• Evaluation of the Answer Key: The Court examined the procedural fairness in revising the answer key. It noted that while some errors in the key were rectified, the revised key still had issues that were not adequately addressed. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and transparent process, especially in matters of public recruitment.
• Expert Committee’s Role: The Court acknowledged the role of the expert committee in reviewing the answer key but stressed that the final decision regarding the correctness of answers must be carefully scrutinized. The Court observed that the revisions made by the committee were insufficient in correcting the errors in the original key, which impacted the petitioners’ chances.
• Transparency in the Process: The Court found that the process lacked the transparency necessary to ensure that all candidates were treated equally. The petitioners had valid concerns regarding the delay in revisions and the lack of uniform application of the third answer key.
• Impact of the Delay: The Court noted that the delay in the selection process had affected the petitioners’ prospects. However, it also recognized the importance of adhering to the selection process in a timely manner to avoid confusion and instability.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the following:

• Reconsideration of the Revised Answer Key: The Court directed the RPSC to reconsider the revised answer key and apply it uniformly to all candidates. The Court specifically instructed that the third answer key, which corrected some issues, should be applied to the merit list for all candidates, including the petitioners.
• Revision of the Merit List: The Court ordered the RPSC to prepare a revised merit list based on the third answer key and issue appointments accordingly. The Court also directed that the petitioners be considered for appointment based on the revised list.
• Timely Resolution: The Court emphasized the need for timely resolution of recruitment processes and directed the RPSC to complete the revised selection process within eight weeks. The Court noted that any further delay would be detrimental to the candidates and the public interest.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in recruitment processes, particularly when issues such as incorrect answer keys and delays arise. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only addresses the grievances of the petitioners but also sets a precedent for ensuring that the selection processes are fair, transparent, and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The ruling also highlights the Court’s role in correcting procedural errors and ensuring that candidates’ rights are protected during recruitment.

Petitioner Name: Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr..
Respondent Name: The State of Rajasthan & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 07-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Vikesh Kumar Gupta & vs The State of Rajasth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-12-2020.pdf