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

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2616

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ, SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Jai Kishan Meena S/o Ramawtar Meena – Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Staff Selection Board – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 130 of 2024
Decided On : 13-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Rajendra Prasad, Dhriti Laddha, Tanay Goyal, Nalin G. Narain, Manish Bhardwaj, R.N. Mathur, Himanshu Jain, Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Apoorva Agrawal, Divyans Choudhary, Avinash Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Rajendra Prasad, Dhriti Laddha, Tanay Goyal, Nalin G. Narain, Manish Bhardwaj, Ajatshatru Mina, Movil Jeenwal, Himanshu Kala, Rajat Chaudhary, Nrip Raj Singh Bhati, Akshit Gupta, Kamlesh Sharma, Aditi Vats, Pragya Seth, Nakul Bansal, Shreyansh Dhariwal, Ram Pratap Saini, Aamir Khan, Gopesh Kumar, Dheeraj Palia, T.C. Vyas, Parmanand Paliwal, Kapil Prakash Mathur, Divya Rathore, Sara Praveen

Judicial interference in examination results is limited to clear errors, supporting the principle that the opinion of expert committees prevails unless demonstrably incorrect.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Selection process for Village Development Officers - Challenge to final answer key - Appeals against Single Judge's order directing re-evaluation of two questions, which were determined based on insufficient material - Court underscores the principle that the scope of judicial review is limited, and interference should only occur if the expert committee's decision is demonstrably erroneous - Impact of judicial decisions on examination results must maintain certainty and uphold the doctrine of stare decisis. (Paras 6, 9, 12, 36)

Facts of the case:
Appellants challenge learned Single Judge's judgment that directed re-assessment of answers to questions in a recruitment examination for 5396 vacancies based on a final answer key, after objections were raised against it. (Paras 6.1-6.5)

Findings of Court:
The Court finds that the expert committee’s reliance on authenticated texts and official sources cannot be deemed incorrect and that re-evaluation without clear errors is not permissible. The learned Single Judge's divergent finding disregarded established precedents. (Paras 28, 36)

Issues: The primary issues included whether the expert committee's answers were based on adequate material and whether the court should interfere with the committee’s decision regarding specific questions. (Paras 9, 36)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that judicial interference with examination results is restricted to demonstrable errors and that the doctrine of stare decisis must be upheld to maintain legal certainty. (Paras 31, 36)

Result: Appeals allowed; Single Judge's order set aside.

Table of Content
1. condonation of delay in appeals (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. overview of recruitment process and selection criteria (Para 5 , 6)
3. challenges to learned single judge's ruling (Para 7 , 9)
4. arguments supporting the writ petitioners (Para 11 , 12)
5. legal principles regarding re-evaluation (Para 14 , 15 , 19)
6. scope of judicial review in examination matters (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 25)
7. criteria for accepting expert committee's evaluation (Para 26 , 28 , 29)
8. principle of stare decisis and judicial discipline (Para 30 , 31)
9. conclusion overturning the single judge's decision (Para 36 , 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, ACJ.

1. This order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid intra-court appeals.

2. All the above mentioned appeals are arising out of the same judgment dated 07.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the reasons mentioned in the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay filed in SAW Nos.220/2024, 222/2024, 223/2024, 225/2024, 227/2024, 240/2024, 321/2024 & 323/2024, same are allowed. The delay caused in filing the aforesaid appeals is hereby condoned and the special appeals are taken up together for consideration jointly.

3. All the writ petitions were involving same set of facts and raising the same issue i.e. challenge given to the final answer key dated 29.07.2022 issued by the Selection Board. Thus, the facts of the lead case being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 677/2023 are taken into consideration for deciding the present batch of Special Appeal Writs.

4. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 677/2023 (Rajasthan Staff Selection Board vs. Kushal Bhardwaj & others) arises out of Judgment dated 07.06.2023 passed by learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge by a common judgment has decided a batch of 70 writ petitions including the lead case i.e. Writ Petition No.11616/2022 (Kushal Bhardwaj vs. State of Rajasthan & others).

5. By the judgment dated 07.06.2023, learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioners and inter alia issued the directions to the appellant-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘Selection Board’) to re-send the Question Nos. 132 & 144 to the Expert Committee for re-assessment/re-evaluation of the answers in view of the text material referred by the petitioners including the standard books of the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan and Government publications of Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy etc. and further directed that if the answer previously suggested in the model answer-key dated 13.07.2022 is also found correct then, in that eventuality, both questions be deleted by the Selection Board. Learned Single Judge has further directed that in such eventuality the fresh merit list be accordingly prepared and the appointments be given on the basis of fresh merit-list upon the unfilled posts of Village Development Officer (hereinafter referred as “V.D.O.”) while saving the candidature of the candidates already appointed.

6. The facts of the case pleaded in the lead case are that :

6.1 By Advertisement No. 04/2021 dated 06.09.2021, applications were invited for appointment on 5396 vacancies of the V.D.O. by way of direct recruitment under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “Rules of 1996”).

6.2 The candidates who were party to the writ petitions were shortlisted after clearing the preliminary examination and appeared in the main examination held on 09.07.2022. The main examination consisted of 160 multiple-choice questions. The marking scheme included negative marking i.e. each correct answer was to be awarded with 1.25 marks, while 1/3rd of a mark was to be deducted for every incorrect answer.

6.3 The model answer-key of the master question paper of was published on 13.07.2022 and thereby, online objections were invited with supporting material. The objections so received were considered by the expert committee and final answer-ke

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