The respondents have now issued an order dated At this stage, learned counsel submit that they are not questioning the expert committee report and correction of the answer key though issue aforesaid has been raised in the writ petitions but they are not pressing the same. The judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad supra was also on different facts. ST 2 Key Set —W. This view also accords with the judgment in Subash Chander Marwaha’s case supra and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash’s case supra. The correction in the answer script and revaluation was allowed and held to be just and legal.

The dispute regarding certain questions was raised in regard to RTET also. The learned counsel for these appellants have not been able to show that after the revised requisition dated January 24, whereby the Board was requested to send its recommendation for 8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the Director General of Police for a larger number of posts. The petitioners are innocent persons. Therein, the action of the respondents to re-evaluate the question and preparation of the merit afresh was held to be just and proper. It all depends on the facts of each case. It was held that such evaluation need not necessarily result in ousting of appellants found below cut off marks based on revised list.

The expert opinion has been questioned by few petitioners but without proper explanation and is not otherwise pressed thus the issue aforesaid is not required to be dealt with. The dispute regarding certain questions seried their answers was raised by few candidates and, as per directions of this court, respondents constituted expert committee for its opinion and based on the expert opinion, result was revised.

The observation therein is not evolving any ratio so as to apply to other case. Candidates, those are searching seriss the Answer key of the question set attempted in the REET Level 1 and 2 are hereby informed that REET Answer Sheet is now uploaded on its official website and ready to download. The change of result is going to effect nearly candidates for 22 Gr III Level-I and nearly candidates for Teacher Gr III Level-II thus number of candidates affected by the outcome of the revised result is not 10 or 20 but running in hundred, rather, in thousand.

The appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. Therein, the action of the 2021 to re-evaluate the question and preparation of the merit afresh was held to be just and proper.

Therein, ousting of candidates was saved by the High Court itself as they were not party to the litigation thus the case was decided on its own facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further considered the issue as to whether revaluation should oust the candidates earlier appointed. For that, The Chief Secretary of the State would pass separate order.


He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. You can check all details regarding this info on our website. The next question and the crucial issue is that if revaluation of answer script ultimately results in revision of merit list to the benefit of meritorious candidates, then can a candidate going out of merit should be allowed to continue eky service?

RTET Question Paper & Answer Key | RTET Solved Question Papers |AKResults

The expert opinion was sought and finding certain questions and answers to be incorrect, result was revised. The Board, on its own, could not recommend names of 19 persons for appointment even though the requisition was for eight posts only because the selection and recommendation answee larger number of persons than the posts for which requisition is sent.

Cites 9 docs – [ View All ]. The question further comes as to for whose advantage, it needs to be corrected? The Apex Court, thereupon, took notice of further fact that continuance of services of the appointees should neither give unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue llevel to the candidates selected qua revised merit list.

The issue aforesaid is required to be viewed from two aspects. In the said case, appellants continued for a long period of 7 years thus decision aforesaid was rendered on its own facts. The non-interference with the appointment of teachers from the panel who stood already appointed cannot in our opinion form the basis of Article 14 argument.

Leave a Lsvel Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. University of Health Sciences and Ors. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the ‘cut off’ mark in the merit list. Para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad is quoted hereunder.

Category: Competition

The only issue is that revision of the merit should not result in termination of petitioners’ services. Reportable The bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law thus were heard and decided by this common judgment. Their cases have to be considered along with those who are not finding place in the merit list of Teacher Gr III due to revision of marks.

This direction would, however, not apply to those candidates who have not secured requisite marks in the RTET. In reference of the judgment above, it become clear that revision of result may not necessarily oust the candidates already appointed, if they are going out of merit list but aforesaid cannot be a rigid formula in view of the ratio propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case supra itself. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant fraud and justice never dwell together has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence.

Rajasthan TET 2012 Answers Key Download – rtetbser.com

In regard to those candidates who are now ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III as they are not possessing required qualifying marks in RTET, a direction for continuance or restraining the respondents to terminate their services cannot be given. First is as to whether there can be re-valuation of the answer script so as to ignore incorrect answers or to correct the answers given ansqer the key. In my opinion, ineligible candidates cannot be continued in service inasmuch as difference rhet to be made between ineligible candidates and eligible candidates.


Those applicants are searching details regarding official answer key must check the official website as well as our webpage. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list.

Thus, while making appointment, it was made subject to final outcome of pending litigation. Concession to the reserved category candidates is given, however, it is subject to final outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Applicants can download the Rajasthan REET official answer key of the said examination after 1 week from the date of examination from its official website.

In respect of the Respondent-Board’s propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the Respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found.

An ineligible candidate has no right to continue in service. In our considered view, the Appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the Respondent-State for more answef three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the Appellants and their Dependants but also adversely affect their careers.

In the instant case, the issue has been discussed and decided elaborately in reference of the judgment of the Serues Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Vikas Pratap Singh.

If the facts of the instant case are taken note of, appointment of the petitioners was only on provisional basis and subject to outcome of various litigations thus it was made clear that the appointments would not give indefinite right in favour of the candidates appointed.