JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present group of writ petitions involves challenge to the result of the written examination conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the RPSC" or "the Commission") pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.03.2018 issued for recruitment of Headmasters in Secondary Education.

2. The petitioners having failed to secure berth in the select list, allege that because of the wrong assessment of the questions and answers, they lagged behind. According to them, the answers of some of the questions ought to have been, what they claim to be correct and some of the questions deserve deletion. Grievance has been raised in relation to host of questions - their improper framing; difference in Hindi and English version of the questions; so also regarding correctness of the answers.

3. Before embarking upon the journey of adjudicating answers to the questions and correctness of the questions themselves, this Court deems it appropriate to sail through the judgments, which were cited by rival counsel at Bar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited judgment dated 12.03.2019 rendered in the case of Bhundaram Vs. State (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.922/2018); judgment dated 03.01.2020 rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12077/2019) and judgment dated 16.04.2018 in Rameshwari Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3083/2018), in a bid to show that this court has been interfering in matters relating to challenge to the questions and their respective answers.

5. As against this, Mr. Tarun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, informed that upon declaration of the result, objections were invited; all the objections were laid before a Committee of Experts, constituted by the Commission; and said committee after thorough deliberation and consideration of relevant material, has given its opinion and the Commission has proceeded strictly in accordance with the recommendation of the experts.

6. While informing that the questions under consideration are from varied subjects, he opined that the Court should not act as an expert and enter and traverse in an unfamiliar terrain. To buttress such stand, learned counsel relied upon a rather recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradeh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 254 .

7. So far as the judgments cited by the petitioners are concerned, they are indicative of the fact that the Courts have been indulgent in such cases; whereas the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court, which was cited by Mr. Joshi, in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh (supra); lays down the parameters within which the Court can interfere.

8. The relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is being reproduced hereunder:-

"8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:-

16...........We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The Court gave further