IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of answer keys in public examinations is limited; courts should defer to expert opinions unless errors are demonstrably clear.

JUDGMENT :

(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 06.08.2024, as issued by the respondents in terms of which the respondents have issued the final merit list which may further result in non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioners, solely for the reason that the preparation of the final merit is done in terms of wrongful and faulty answer key. 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, SBCWP No. 14832/2024 titled as Dr. Pankaj Yadav Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., is being taken up as the lead petition. 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 and the instant judgment shall be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis.

BACKGROUND

2. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be determined by this Court, is that the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Science (hereinafter referred to as RUHS) vide notification dated 06.03.2024 invited applications for 172 posts of Medical Officer (Dental) and subsequently on 12.04.2024 a revised notification qua the said recruitment was released and the applications were invited in-between the period of 22.04.2024 and 21.05.2024. Thereafter, by a successive notification dated 31.05.2024, the number of intake qua the said post was increased to 209.

3. The petitioners appeared in the examination for the said posts wherein, the said examination was objective/Multiple Choice Questions based with number of questions as 100. Consequentially, the respondents on 18.07.2024 issued the Model Answer Key as per the master paper for perusal of the candidates. Consequently, the respondents issued a press note on the official website inviting objections with regard to the discrepancies in the Model Answer key. For submission of objections a time window in-between 19.07.2024 and 20.07.2024 till 5 P.M. was provided, and the candidates were required to submit their objections along with substantial/relied upon study material through offline mode.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners had argued that the impugned action of the respondent-RUHS, 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.

5. Moreover, the respondents offered a miniscule period within which the objections were to be submitted. Nevertheless, ignoring or without tendering any reasonable justification qua the said objections, the respondents on 06.08.2024 issued the impugned final answer key. It was further contended that despite the fact that the petitioners are otherwise meritorious and qualified aspirant for the said post, but primarily because the respondents were not vigilant enough about the assessment in terms of the impugned final answer key, the same might lead to non-selection of the candidature of the petitioners or affect their actual merit secured.

6. Further, learned counsel had made threefold contentions:

6.1 Primarily that due to the said wrongful evaluation of the questions, the petitioners have lost certain marks and other candidates have wrongfully gained certain marks.

6.2 Secondly, that the respondents issued the mark-sheets of the petitioners wherein the expected cut-off marks are stated as per the category of the candidate, howsoever, due to the said wrong articulation/calculation of questions and cursory consideration of