1. State recruitment process for teachers challenge due to flawed answer keys, resulting in revised merit lists and subsequent litigation regarding appointment of candidates not in the initial selection list. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 194
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ.
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2481-2488 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13102-13109 of 2020)
Decided On : 28-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG,, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv., Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv., Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv., Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv., Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv., Mr. Arjun Kanadi, Adv., Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv., Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mr. Mayank Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Girraj Singh Yadav, Adv., Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. Mrs. Pearl Pundir, Adv., Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vikram Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Deepsea Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Aman Jha, AOR Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mr. Balwant Singh Billowira, Adv. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Kaninika Majumder, Adv., Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv., Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Ray, Adv. Ms. Arpita Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR, Mr. Abhay Anand Jena, AOR, Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv., Mr. Keane Sardhina, Adv., Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR, Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG,, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv., Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Ms. Akriti Sharma, Adv., Mr. Harsh Jain, Adv., Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv., Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv., Mr. Arjun Kanadi, Adv., Mr. Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Adv., Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv. Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mr. Mayank Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Girraj Singh Yadav, Adv., Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv., Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. Mrs. Pearl Pundir, Adv., Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. Vikram Nagpal, Adv. Ms. Deepsea Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Aman Jha, AOR Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR, Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR, Mr. Balwant Singh Billowira, Adv. Dr. Ravinder Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Kaninika Majumder, Adv., Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv., Mr. Akash Yadav, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Ray, Adv. Ms. Arpita Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR, Mr. Abhay Anand Jena, AOR, Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv., Mr. Keane Sardhina, Adv., Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR, Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Ms. Charu Mathur, AOR
Appointments for Grade III Teachers must reflect accurate merit while adhering to court directives on recruitment processes, ensuring transparency and fairness in selections.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment and selection processes - Case refers to the appointments of Grade III Teachers in Rajasthan - Relevant judgments include Ramdhan Kumawat and Mukesh Kumar Tailor cases, addressing flawed answer keys and directives issued by court. - The State's failure to appeal earlier judgments or adhere to directives led to continuous litigation. - The court mandated the State to revise appointment lists based on correct merit ordering, ensuring candidates with superior marks receive due process. (Paras 4-20)
(B) Educational Qualifications and Employment - Court emphasized the necessity for accurate answer keys and transparent recruitment processes to uphold meritocracy. Reports and model answers need to be validated by an expert committee before finalizing candidates. (Paras 2-6, 8, 12)
(C) Continuity of Employment - Those wrongly terminated may not lose their positions if no fault is found, ensuring employment stability until issues are resolved. (Paras 10-11)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek appointment based on higher merit relative to retained candidates after revised evaluation, while the State disputes eligibility for those below the revised selection list's cut-off mark. (Para 8 , 14 , 15 )
3. Consistent with previous binding judgments based on State concessions, candidates scoring higher than the last recruited person in the initial list are eligible for appointment against available vacant posts. (Para 16 , 17 )
4. Where the State enters a judicial concession to accommodate meritorious candidates against existing vacancies to resolve recruitment disputes, the Court will enforce such undertaking to ensure parity and fairness. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Appeals dismissed; State directed to prepare a list of qualifying candidates between the initial and revised cut-offs and offer appointments against available vacancies within two months, notionally protecting seniority. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Can candidates not in the original selection list claim appointment if they score higher than those already retained due to previous judicial orders?
Yes. Based on State concessions adopted in settled judicial rulings, candidates who have higher marks than the last candidate retained in service are entitled to be considered for appointment against existing, validly identified vacant posts. (Para 8 , 11 , 16 , 17 )
7. How is inter-se seniority maintained for candidates appointed pursuant to a revised merit list result?
Inter-se seniority is maintained in accordance with the merit of the revised seniority list, with newly appointed candidates placed at the bottom while maintaining their relative merit-based positions relative to each other. (Para 18 )
8. Are candidates entitled to back wages upon appointment following a successful challenge to an examination's answer key?
No. As per the established judicial directions in the underlying litigation, candidates found eligible for appointment due to revised merit lists are not entitled to back wages or financial benefits for the period prior to their actual joining. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed.
3. These Civil Appeals pertain to the recruitment, selection and appointment of the Grade III Teachers (level I and level II) in various places across 33 districts in the State of Rajasthan. The advertisement was issued on 24.02.2012 notifying 39544 posts, out of which, 10690 posts were for level I (Class 1 to 5) and 28935 posts for level II (Class 6 to 8). Indisputably, the recruitment was conducted district wise through the Panchayati Raj Department. The examination was held on 02.06.2012 and results were declared on 27.08.2012 and the orders of appointment were issued.
4. The batch of unsuccessful candidates challenged the process of selection before the High Court, inter-alia contending that flawed answer keys were given, which led to erroneous result of the examination. In the pleadings, illustration and examples of the questions and their answers were given, which has been discussed by the High Court. However, after analysing the contentions, the High Court in the case of Ramdhan Kumawat vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10622 of 2014) vide judgment dated 18.11.2014, issued the following directions :
“9. In that view of the matter, the Court deems it proper to give the following directions :
(i) The respondent No.1-State Government in Panchayati Raj Department shall appoint an Expert committee for preparing the model answer keys to the question papers of all subjects in respect of the examination held on 2/6/2012 for the posts of Teacher Gr.II (Level I & II) at different Districts. The said Expert Committee shall comprise of the experts who are either Readers or Senior Professors in Rajasthan University or a very learned and reputed persons in the concerned subject. They shall be appointed by the respondent No.1 at the earliest and latest by 28/11/2014.
(ii) The said Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys, taking recourse to the standard text books prescribed for being taught in the schools and standard reference books used for colleges, published by the Education Boards or the State Government, or shall take recourse to other government publications or materials, which are officially put on the government website or used for the information of public at large, or to the publications of the books written by the authors recognized by the Government as the authority on a particular subject. The Expert Committee shall disclose the source of information relied upon by them for each of the answer keys, while submitting their reports to the respondent No.1.
(iii) The Expert Committee shall prepare the model answer keys on or before 15/12/2014 and shall cause them to be put on the website of the Government in Panchayati Raj Department on the same date, inviting objections from the candidates who had appeared in the examination in question.
(iv) The candidates shall submit their objections before the concerned Expert Committee on or before 18/12/2014. The Expert Committee, after taking into consideration the objections, if any submitted by the candidates, shall prepare final model answer keys for each of the question papers of the concerned subjects and submit the same to the respondent No.1 in the sealed cover not later than 22/12/2014.
(v) The respondent No.1 shall prepare the merit list afresh of the selected candidates for being appointed in the respective zila Parishads on the basis of the said model answer keys prepared by the experts committee as early as possible and put on the Government website latest by 31/12/2014.
(vi) Since the fresh merit list would disturb the merit list prepared earlier by the respondents, entailing possible termination of the candidates already appointed and working on their respective posts at different Zila Parishads, it is directed that such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to the issuance of appointment letters on the basis of the
