Back
SAMEER JAIN
Surjan Lal Dhawan S/o Prabhu Dayal Dhawan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the challenge raised to the correctness and/or validity of the impugned revised answer keys for various subjects, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission, pursuant to the constitution of the subject-wise expert committees. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication of common questions of law, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the questions of law to be determined by this Court.
FACTUAL NARRATIVE:
2. The ineluctable facts, necessary for discerning the issue at hand, are concisely noted herein-under:
2/1 That on 13.04.2018, the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, RPSC or Commission) issued an advertisement for the post o
Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts should not interfere unless errors are clear and demonstrable.
Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.
Judicial review of answer keys in public examinations is limited; courts should defer to expert opinions unless errors are demonstrably clear.
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
Judicial review in recruitment matters is limited; courts should not interfere with expert committee decisions unless clear errors are demonstrated.
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.
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
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
