Limited judicial review and reluctance to interfere with the decisions of expert bodies in matters of limited expertise, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's principles

ORDER :

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the final answer key and the marks awarded pursuant to the recruitment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector held by Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (‘the Board’) in terms of advertisement dated 24.11.2021.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petitions that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners applied and were subjected to written examination, wherein, three papers (i) General Knowledge and Everyday Science - 100 marks, (ii) Language (Hindi and English) - 100 marks and (iii) Automobile & Mechanical Engineering - 200 marks were held.

3. After publishing the model answer key, objections were invited, to which, the petitioners objected. Whereafter, the final answer key have been published by the respondent-Board and marks awarded.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed.

5. While, petitioner-Laxman Singh Bhati has questioned the validity of final answer key in relation to questions No. 70, 60, 63, 123 and 136, petitioner-Shubham Vyas has questioned the validity of final answer key in relation to questions No. 2, 26, 25, 87, 90 and 123.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the material produced in the writ petitions, made submissions that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents while issuing the final answer key qua the questions under challenge, are incorrect and/or requires modification and a consequential effect need to be given to the marks awarded to the petitioners.

7. Reply to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondent-Board, inter-alia, observing that several objections in relation to large number of questions were received and the same have been thoroughly examined by the Experts, who have arrived at a particular conclusion pertaining to each answer and that conclusion arrived at by the Experts do not call for any interference. Alongwith the reply, the respondent-Board, has also made reference to the material relied on by the Experts for arriving at a particular conclusion.

8. Under the directions of the Court, the respondent-Board has produced the conclusion arrived at by the Experts alongwith the supporting material for perusal of the Court.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board made further submissions that the law with regard to interference by this Court in relation to the conclusion arrived at by the Expert Committee, is very limited and has referred to various judgments including Ranvijay Singh vs. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2021) 2 SCC 309.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. The issue as to the extent and power of the Courts to interfere in matters of present nature has been subject matter of a number of judicial decisions and is no longer res integra as it has already been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court.

12. This Court in Phoosgir and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17265/2021 and other connected matters decided on 23.03.2022, in a recruitment related to Agriculture Supervisor, came to the following conclusion:

“From the above, it is apparent that the expert committee has thoroughly examined the objections as raised by the petitioners and have reached to a particular conclusion. The petitioners have made submissions based on the material produced by them in support of their claim in relation to each question and the expert committee has referred to/relied on material in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. As out of two materials produced by the petitioners and considered by the expert committee, which material should be relied on, essentially is in the domain of the expert committee and this Court, possibly cannot after the expert committee has arrived at a particular conclusion,