Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., SHUBHA MEHTA, J.
Mahendra Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Kalyan Mal and ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue and ors. – Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 986/2022, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 782/2022
Decided On : 10-07-2024
EXAMINATION - CORRECTNESS OF ANSWER KEY - ACT SECTION LIST - Sections of the Constitution, Judicial Review Principles - The court discussed the principles of judicial review in the context of examination answer keys, emphasizing that interference is limited to cases where the answer key is demonstrably wrong. The court highlighted the importance of expert opinions in determining the correctness of answers and reiterated that the burden lies on the candidates to prove the key answer's incorrectness without inferential reasoning. The decision of the Expert Committee was upheld, reflecting the legal framework that prioritizes the authority of examination bodies in academic matters.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two intra-court appeals challenging the correctness of the answer key for a competitive examination conducted by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for the post of Patwari. The appellants contested the decision of the Expert Committee, which changed the answer key for a specific question from 'Toda' to 'Gagron'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Expert Committee's decision was based on a thorough examination of objections and relevant texts. The court upheld the conclusion that the correct answer was 'Gagron', stating that the appellants did not demonstrate that the Expert Committee's decision was demonstrably wrong.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should interfere with the Expert Committee's decision regarding the correctness of the answer key for question No. 135.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review in academic matters is limited and should only occur in exceptional cases where the answer key is clearly incorrect. The court emphasized the need for candidates to provide clear evidence of error without relying on inferential reasoning.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge and the correctness of the Expert Committee's answer key.
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:-
(A) Peepar (B) Toda
(C) Dhanera (D) Gagron”
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 objection with regard to question No.135 along with objection to correctness of answer key of other questions. It is also not in
Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts should not interfere unless a demonstrable error is shown, respecting the expertise of academic authorities.
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 in....
The court upheld that key answers in examinations are presumed correct unless candidates clearly demonstrate errors; judicial interference in academic matters is limited and should respect expert opi....
The court reaffirmed that examination key answers should be presumed correct unless explicit evidence shows otherwise, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic matters.
Judicial interference in examination results is limited to clear errors, supporting the principle that the opinion of expert committees prevails unless demonstrably incorrect.
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....
Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without a....
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
