Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.

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 26.05.2023, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter, RSSB), pursuant to the invitation of objection(s) from the applicants/candidates as against the preliminary answer key published on 18.03.2023.

2. 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. 10358/2023 titled as Nidhi Choudhary and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, if any, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the questions of law to be determined by this Court.

3. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be determined by this Court, is noted herein-under:-

3.1 That the respondent no.5-RSSB issued advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for selection on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level I).

3.2 That in total, 21000 posts came to be notified vide said advertisement.

3.3 That selection on the aforesaid posts was advertised to be based upon a competitive examination, scheme of which is noted herein-under:-

1. Total Number of Questions: 150

2. Maximum Marks: 300

3. Time Duration: 2 hrs. and 30 mins.

4. Negative Marking: 1/3 marks

5. Weightage per Correct Answer: 2 marks

3.4 That as per the advertisement, the candidates were required to fill the application form between 21.12.2022 to 19.01.2023.

3.5 That the written examination was conducted by the RSSB on 25.02.2023.

3.6 That on 18.03.2023, the RSSB issued the model answer key.

3.7 That on the same date, a press note was released inviting objections from the candidates as against the model answer key dated 18.03.2023. For doing so, the stipulated time given to the candidates was 20.03.2023 to 22.03.2023. 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-RSSB.

3.8 That on 26.05.2023, the RSSB released the final answer key.

3.9 That vide said final answer key, after taking note of the objections received against the 22 questions/answers in total, as provided in the preliminary answer key, the RSSB did the following:-

3.9.1 Deleted 5 Questions (Question Nos. 55,96,113, 149 and 150).

3.9.2 Changed the answers in 3 questions (Question Nos. 84,118 and 126).

3.9.3 Maintained the answers included in the preliminary answer key in 14 questions (Question Nos. 9,19,21,22,47,51,64,83,90,119,122,12,8,130 and 131).

3.10 That being aggrieved of the aforesaid deviations and/or non-deviations in the final answer key dated 26.05.2023, from the preliminary answer key dated 18.03.2023, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present batch of writ petitions.

3.11 That pursuant to the filing of the instant petition, vide order dated 12.09.2023, this Court as an interim measure, directed the RSSB to re-verify the conclusion with respect to the above-noted 22 questions, as indicated in the final answer key, through its body of experts within a period of 15 days.

3.12 That in compliance of the interim order dated 12.09.2023, the RSSB submitted a compliance report, which forms part of the record, having been placed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8893/2023 titled as Priyanka Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

3.13 That as per the compliance report so furnished, the RSSB pursuant to the re-verification of the final answer key dated 26.05.2023 by its body of experts, especially as against the objected 22 questions, maintained the answer