IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of examination answer keys is permissible only in exceptional cases where the key is demonstrably wrong, and the burden of proof lies with the candidates to show such error without inferential reasoning.

JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid two intra-court appeals.

2. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.782/2022, filed at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur, arises out of a common order dated 27.05.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellants.

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.986/2022, filed at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, arises out of a common order dated 19.07.2022 passed in a batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellants.

3. Both the appeals were heard analogously at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

4. An advertisement was issued on 17.01.2020 by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) inviting online applications for direct recruitment to the post of Patwari. The competitive written examination was held on 23.10.2021 and a preliminary answer key was issued by the Board on 23.10.2021 itself inviting online objections towards preliminary answer key. Final answer key was issued by the Board on 25.01.2022 based on the decision of the Expert Committee on various objections raised by the candidates with regard to the answer key proposed by the Board. It followed publication of select list.

5. At this stage, the appellants-writ petitioners filed their respective writ petitions at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as Bench at Jaipur, questioning the decision taken by the Expert Committee with regard to the correctness of the answer key, as decided by the Expert Committee. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions filed at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, vide order dated 27.05.2022, examined the issue relating to correctness of the answer key of various questions. It came to the conclusion that except for question Nos.69 and 98 of Question Booklet Series-104D, wherein for question No.98 of Question Booklet Series-104D, based on concession by the Board, none of the objections raised by the candidates fall within the parameters of interference, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, held that except for the two questions, no case for interference is made out. The petitions were accordingly partly allowed. However, appellant-Prakash Vishnoi and another (DBSAW No.782/2022), felt aggrieved by the order insofar as correctness of answer key of question No.135 of Question Booklet Series-104C is concerned and filed the intra-court appeal.

6. As batch of petitions including the writ petition of appellant-Mahendra Kumar Jat (DBSAW No.986/2022) and other petitions came to be dismissed by a Single Bench at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide order dated 19.07.2022, in the light of the order passed by the Single Bench at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in another batch of petitions involving identical issue, this appeal has also been preferred by Mahendra Kumar Jat.

7. In both the appeals, the only question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge that decision of the Expert Committee regarding correct answer key of question No.135 of Question Booklet Series-104C, warrants interference. No other issue was raised during the course of arguments by learned counsel appearing for the parties in both the appeals.

8. Question No. 135 of Question Booklet Series-104C reads as below:-

“135. Where is the cave of ‘Saint Peepa’?

9. It is an admitted position that when the preliminary answer key was published by the Board, option “(B) Toda” was marked as correct answer key. However, when objections were made with regard to correctness of answer key by various candidates, who claimed that correct answer key was option “(D) Gagron”, the Board constituted a committee of experts and referred this