Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.NATARAJ
Nithin Gowda J. R., S/o. Ramanjinappa J. R. – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Karnataka, Represented By The Registrar General And Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandamus issued for reassessing exam questions. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. expert evaluation must be respected in court. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. timeliness of objections can impact entitlement. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. incorrect classification in answers needs correction. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. petitioner qualifies for main examination. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
R. NATARAJ, J.
1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his representation dated 22.10.2025 and reassess the question Nos.86 and 98 in respect of the preliminary examination-2025, 'A' series question paper and make necessary additions and corrections and extend the benefit.
2. (i) The petitioner is one of the candidates who applied in response to a notification dated 10.02.2025 issued for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judges. The petitioner contends that the preliminary examination was conducted on 11.10.2025 and the provisional answer key was published on 13.10.2025 inviting objections. The respondent had fixed 15.10.2025 as the last date for filing objections. The petitioner filed objections in respect of question Nos.46 and 98. The final answer key was released on
The court mandated grace marks for incorrect answer keys, emphasizing the priority of accurate assessment in recruitment processes.
The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to interfere in examination matters, the requirement for clear and unambiguous questions, and the need for rare and exception....
Educational administration provides appropriate education to appropriate student by appropriate teacher by which they can able to become best by using available maximum resources.
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
The onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is requir....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
