Not Issuing Provisional Answer Key Or Inviting Objections During Recruitment Process Violates Fundamental Rights Of Candidates: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not following the procedure like issuance of model answer key, inviting objections, constitution of committee of experts and issuance of final answer key in the recruitment process for government posts, renders the process non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of the aspirants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.The bench of...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that not following the procedure like issuance of model answer key, inviting objections, constitution of committee of experts and issuance of final answer key in the recruitment process for government posts, renders the process non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of the aspirants under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain thus directed the State and its authorities including the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Staff Selection Board to undertake the recruitment process in strict adherence to the law and the Supreme Court's decision in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors., and prepare a fresh merit list within 2 months.
In the case of Harkirat Singh case, the Apex Court had ruled that,
“to keep transparency in the process of holding examination, particularly in such cases where there is a multiple-choice question paper, it is always advisable that for such question papers, there shall always be an OMR sheet which may be provided to the candidates so that the question paper can be retained by each of the participants and after the examination is held, a provisional answer key is to be uploaded inviting objections from the candidates who had participated in the selection process, to be furnished within a reasonable time and after collating such objections, the same be placed before a subject expert committee to be constituted by the recruiting/competent authority and after the report is submitted by the subject expert committee, the same be examined by the recruiting authority and thereafter the final answer key is to be uploaded.”
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the candidates who participated in the recruitment process for the posts of Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), Junior Environment Engineer (JEE) and Legal Officer-II, but their names did not appear in the provisional list of shortlisted candidates.
The primary contention put forth by the petitioners was that the recruitment was conducted in a biased, unfair and non-transparent manner. It was argued that to maintain transparency in public objective type examinations, a copy of OMR along with the question booklet should be provided to the candidate. Thereafter, a model answer key should be published on which objections should be invited followed by responses to those objections and finally publishing of final answer key. However, no such procedure was adopted since the examination was conducted in an online format.
Furthermore, it was argued that instead of engaging an exam conducting authority like RPSCB, the recruitment process was culminated in great haste with the aid of Institute of Personnel Banking (IBPS).
After hearing the contention, the Court firstly held that as per the provisions of Rajasthan State Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations, 1993 (“1993 Regulations”), RPSCB had the right to delegate its powers and conduct the recruitment as per direct recruitment once it had invited applications on the posts through published notification.
Furthermore, the Court opined that it was a settled law that right to fair and impartial process of selection was fundamental irrespective of the score of an individual since such it safeguarded an individual's interest and also increased public confidence. Hence, it was held that the respondents had bypassed the settled position of law as laid down in the Harkirat Singh Case and observed that,
“it can be deduced that at the drop of the hat, the respondents have rushed to conclude the said selection process and the same reflects the malice in law and violation of provisions of RTPP Act…no objections were called by the respondents subsequent to the release of provisional answer key, no proper rationale and explanations are tendered by the expert committee, if so formulated…From the afore-relied upon ratios it can be deduced that to maintain transparency in the public employment especially where multiple choice question-answer pattern is followed, the question papers should be provided to the candidates after the conclusion of the said examination; provisional/model answer key should be released; objections should be called; expert committee should be constituted and reasonable explanation and justification should be tendered to the dubious questions; and only after following the said procedure the final answer key should be released. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that under the garb of technicalities, the said procedure is not followed in the impugned recruitment process.”
Thus, the Court highlighted that even though the mechanism of direct recruitment by engaging IBPS as exam conducting authority was valid, the Respondents had erred by not following the advisory guidelines issued in the precedents and conducted the examination in a non-transparent and unfair manner.
Accordingly, the Court passed the afore-mentioned directions while allowing the batch of petitions.
Title: Narpat Surela v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 2