Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ARUN BHANSALI
Ashok Kumar Gurjar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the revised answer key for recruitment to the post of Constable-2019.
2. It is, inter-alia, submitted in the petition that the answers pertaining to questions No. 4, 5, 22, 49,107 and 118 require changes/the revised answer key requires amendment. The Bench at Jaipur in Kamal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 638/2021 decided on 17.02.2021 and Krishan Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6589/2021 decided on 12.11.2021, had required the respondents to go through the objections raised by the candidates therein regarding several questions/revised answer key and give effect to the same.
3. In reply to the petition, the respondents in paragraph 9 of the reply have clearly indicated that after the decision by the Court at Jaipur Bench on 12.11.2021, the respondents formed a Committee of the Experts and the objections raised by the petitioner(s) including t
Courts should be slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and assessment of questions by the courts to arrive at correct answers is not permissible.
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.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
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....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
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
The court reaffirmed that examination key answers should be presumed correct unless explicit evidence shows otherwise, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic matters.
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
Listen Article