Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SHUBHA MEHTA
Mahendra Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Kalyan Mal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue – Respondent
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 w
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
