SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., SHUBHA MEHTA, JJ.
Mahendra Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Kalyan Mal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 986/2022, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 782/2022
Decided on : 10-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J.M. Saxena, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta, Advocate & Ms. Vandana, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Chaitanya Kumar Gehlot, Advocate, through VC
For the Respondent:Mr. Nalin G. Narain, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG assisted by Mr. Udit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG through VC, Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, Advocate through VC Mr. Tananjay Parmar, Advocate through VC

Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts should not interfere unless a demonstrable error is shown, respecting the expertise of academic authorities.

Headnote:

Judicial Review - Answer Key Dispute - Act Section List - The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters, affirming that interference is only warranted in exceptional cases where answer keys are demonstrably wrong, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves two intra-court appeals challenging the correctness of an answer key for a competitive examination conducted by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board. The appellants contested the decision of an Expert Committee that changed the answer key for a specific question.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the decision of the Expert Committee, stating that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the revised answer key was demonstrably wrong. The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in academic matters and the presumption of correctness of expert opinions.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the court should interfere with the Expert Committee's decision regarding the correct answer key for a specific examination question.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review in academic matters is limited and should only occur in exceptional cases where a clear and demonstrable error in the answer key is established, without relying on inferential reasoning.

Result: Both appeals are dismissed.

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’?

(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 di

                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                1
                                2
                                3
                                4
                                5
                                6
                                7
                                8
                                9
                                10
                                11
                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                supreme today icon
                                logo-black

                                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

                                qr

                                Scan Me!

                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                whatsapp-icon Back to top