HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
INDERJEET SINGH, MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, JJ.
Savina Kumari, W/o. Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Department Of Education and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 393 Of 2025
Decided On : 28-04-2025
(A) Rajasthan Public Service Commission Act - Judicial Review - The court addressed the limited scope of judicial review concerning the decisions of expert committees in recruitment examinations, emphasizing that courts should not interfere unless a clear error is demonstrated. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Recruitment Process - The court reiterated that the examination authority's decisions are presumed correct unless proven otherwise, and judicial review should be exercised sparingly. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The appeals were filed against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the RPSC's handling of objections to examination answer keys for the post of School Lecturer-2018. The RPSC had conducted examinations and issued answer keys, which were contested by candidates.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge correctly applied the principles of judicial review and did not err in dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues: The main issues included whether the RPSC properly considered objections to the answer keys and the scope of judicial review in recruitment matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review in recruitment matters is limited, and courts should not re-evaluate answers unless a clear error is shown.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Order :
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Bhakar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.636/2024 along with other connected matters) decided on 17.03.2025, wherein the following order was passed:-
“1. In the present batch of appeals since common questions are involved, hence with consent of the parties, the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4777/2021 (Surjan Dhawan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. along with other connected matters) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these appeals.
4. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions narrated the factual aspects in para No.2 of the judgment which are as under:-
“2. The ineluctable facts, necessary for discerning the issue at hand, are concisely noted herein-under:
2/1 That on 13.04.2018, the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, RPSC or Commission) issued an advertisement for the post of School Lecturer-2018 for different subjects, whereby 5000 posts were advertised in toto. 2/2 That on 03.01.2020, the examination for G.K. (Paper- I) (Group-A) and Hindi was conducted by the respondent-RPSC. For the other subjects, the examination was conducted on several distinct dates, which are immaterial for adjudicating upon the legal issue at hand.
2/3 That on 12.03.2020, the model answer key for the subjects of G.K. (Group-A) and Hindi was issued.
2/4 That vide press note dated 12.03.2020, online objections were invited for G.K. (Group A) from 17.03.2020 to 19.03.2020. In the said note, it was made clear that all the objections must be submitted online and not through any other mode. Additionally, the press note also clarified that the respondent-RPSC shall entertain the objections on only one occasion i.e. the candidates, after being duly informed, were granted only one single opportunity to raise their objections qua the model answer key. Similarly, model answer keys were also issued for various other subjects as well, appended with an identical press note qua the mode and medium of raising objections, as mentioned herein-above.
2/5 That while raising the objections qua the model answer key online, the candidates were provided with seven distinct options, amongst which, they ought to select the one most suited to their grievance. The options provided were: (i) All options are wrong (ii) More than one options are correct (iii) Question is incorrect/vague (iv) Difference in Hindi and English version (v) Out of syllabus (vi) Question is not clear (vii) Others.
2/6 That after duly taking note of the objections raised by the candidates, the subject experts on 26.06.2020, issued the provisional merit list. Thereafter, subsequent to the verification of the documents, the final list was issued on 22.12.2020.
2/7 That on 07.01.2021, the final answer key was issued by the respondent-RPSC. It is pertinent to note that simultaneously, the process as enunciated herein-above, was also carried out for various other subjects and thereafter, the final answer key for the other subjects was also issued by the Commission on respective dates.
2/8 That on 17.02.2021, this Court passed an order in S.B. CWP No. 638/2021 titled as Kamal Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby it was observed that the objections raised by the candidates/petitioners shall be considered by a Special Expert Committee, consisting of experts from various subjects, at the level of the respondent-RPSC.
2/9 That in pursuance to the order dated 17.02.2021, the respondent-RPSC constituted the Special Expert Committee-I
Judicial review in recruitment matters is limited; courts should not interfere with expert committee decisions unless clear errors are demonstrated.
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.
The scope of interference by the Court in the decisions of expert examining bodies in the field of education or public employment is necessarily limited, and the Court should be very slow in interfer....
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.