The scope of interference by the Court in the decisions of expert examining bodies in the field of education or public employment is necessarily limited, and the Court should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters.

ORDER

1. Defects be removed within two weeks.

2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 22.02.2022. Facts may be noted from D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.429/2022. The respondents-original petitioners and other petitioners had appeared in Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination in response to the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC'). The examination would be held at three stages. Preliminary examination comprising of 150 objective questions with multiple choice answers consisting of 200 marks with negative marking would be conducted for initial screening of the candidates. Those who qualify would be subjected to written main examination followed by oral interviews. The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021. Model answer keys were published on 03.11.2021 inviting objections from the candidates. 939 candidates raised objections. These objections were considered by the RPSC. Result of the examination was published on 19.11.2021. Final answer key was published on 22.11.2021.

3. This exercise led to objections from various candidates. According to these candidates several questions were either incorrect or the answers to these questions were not clear or in some cases not correct. They therefore approached the Court by filing independent petitions. In all these petitions the candidates had called in question the decision of RPSC with respect to question Nos.1, 7, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 62, 84, 98, 105 and 122. We may record that in some cases RPSC had decided to delete the questions when it was found that either the question was not correct or more than one answer would fit the question. The candidates had also questioned some of these decisions of RPSC.

4. Learned Single Judge combined all these petitions for common consideration and disposal of by common impugned judgment dated 22.02.2022. The learned Single Judge interfered in 6 questions. Regarding question nos.1, 31, 98 and 105 the learned Judge was not satisfied with the opinion of RPSC and required reconsideration at the hands of experts body. Regarding question no.41 the learned Judge overruled the decision of the RPSC and directed deletion of the question altogether. In question no.62 the learned Single Judge changed the correct answer from original option no.3 to option no.1.

5. This judgment the RPSC has challenged in these appeals. Learned Advocate General stated at the outset that due to paucity of time only two appeals have been filed so far however he would instruct the RPSC to file appeals in all petitions which fully or partially stand allowed by the impugned judgment. He further stated that originally the written main examination was scheduled on 25.02.2022 and 26.02.2022 however in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge the same has been cancelled and would be rescheduled for later.

6. Appearing for RSPC learned Advocate General submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error in interfering with the decision of the experts body. RPSC had entertained all objections and examined the same carefully before coming to its final conclusions. Whenever it was found necessary experts committees were formed. In cases where the questions were found to be ambiguous or no clear cut single answer was correct the RPSC decided to delete the question to avoid any injustice. In some cases even the correct answer was changed accepting the objections of the candidates. Once this exercise is completed, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. Unless the decision of the experts body such as RPSC is tainted with malafides or suffers from material procedural irregularity or is totally irrational, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere. He has cited several decisions of Supreme Court reference to which would be made at appropriate stage.

7. On the other hand learned senior counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur led