IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Prema Ram Patel S/o Bheema Ram Patel and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18130/2023
Decided On : 22-03-2024
Judicial Review - Writ Petitions - Article 226 - Scope and Limitations - The court discussed the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that interference is only permissible in cases of palpable and demonstrable errors in answer keys prepared by expert bodies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the final answer key of the RAS 2023 Preliminary Examination, claiming it was incorrect and violated their fundamental rights. They sought to quash the final answer key and have their objections considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final answer key was prepared after expert review of objections and did not contain palpable errors. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters.
Issues: Whether the final answer key issued by the RPSC was demonstrably erroneous and whether the court could interfere in the decision-making process of the RPSC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and that the correctness of answer keys should be presumed unless clear errors are demonstrated.
Result: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the final answer key as valid.
ORDER :
Sameer Jain, J.
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 regarding the correctness and/or validity of the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter, RPSC), pursuant to the invitation of objection(s) from the applicants/candidates as against the model answer key published on 01.10.2023. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18130/2023 titled as Prema Ram Patel and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, 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.
2. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be determined by this Court, is concisely noted herein-under:-
2.1 On 28.06.2023, the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination-2023 (hereinafter, RAS 2023).
2.2 Being eligible as per the conditions enumerated in the advertisement, the petitioners applied for the RAS 2023 Examination, in their respective categories.
2.3 On 08.08.2023, the respondent-RPSC issued a press note whereby the date of examination was scheduled as 01.10.2023.
2.4 On 01.10.2023, the RAS-2023 Examination i.e. preliminary round, was conducted by the respondent-RPSC.
2.5 After the completion of said written examination, the model answer key was uploaded on the website of the respondent-RPSC.
2.6 Subsequently, on the same date, vide press note dated 01.10.2023, objections were invited from the applicants/candidates against the said model answer key.
2.7 Certain objections were raised by the candidates/applicants against the model answer key so issued. At this nascent juncture, it is made clear that as per the record before this Court, it is reflected that not all the petitioners had raised objections against the model answer key, in the time frame so prescribed by the respondent-RPSC.
2.8 On 20.10.2023, the final answer key for the RAS 2023 Preliminary Examination was released by the respondent-RPSC. On the same date, the result of the applicants/candidates along with the cut-off marks for the preliminary examination was also declared.
2.9 In accordance with the final answer key released by the respondent-RPSC and the corresponding result of the petitioners, the petitioners failed to qualify for the RAS 2023 Mains Examination.
2.10 Being aggrieved of the purported incorrectness of the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R. N. Mathur, Senior Counsel, unanimously and unequivocally, along with the other counsel argued that the impugned action of the respondent-RPSC, in not adequately and correctly examining the objections raised by the petitioners is patently arbitrary, unjust and unfair, thereby being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. As a result, the relief sought by the petitioners is threefold. Qua the primary relief, it is prayed that the final answer key, as also the result dated 20.10.2023, be quashed and set aside. Secondly, the objections advanced by the petitioners be duly considered and thereafter, a fresh final answer key be prepared by the respondent-RPSC. Whereas, by way of the tertiary relief, it is prayed that in accordance with the subsequently revised final answer key, the result of the petitioners be revised and thereafter, if eligible as per the fresh cut-off marks, the petitioners be declared eligible for the RAS 2023 Mai
Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors.
Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Arun Kumar and Ors.
Guru Nayak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg and Ors.
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr.
Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors.
Manish Ujwal vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University
Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Richal and Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.
Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr.
Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
West Bengal Central School Service Commission and Ors. vs. Abdul Halim
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 : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.