An unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge evaluation criteria based solely on dissatisfaction with the outcome in a selection process.

Order

10/01/2024

1. Petitioner, having remained unsuccessful, inter alia, seeks direction commanding the respondents to re-evaluate the marks awarded to him in the written examination held on 27.02.2023 for selection on the post Upper Primary School Teacher pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.1).

2. Relevant facts first. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) invited online applications for the position of Upper Primary School Teacher (General/Special Education) (Level-II, Class 6 to 8) for the subject English. The petitioner, possessing the required qualifications, also applied for the post. He participated in the exam and the RSSB published the final answer key. The petitioner claims to have attempted 122 questions, with 96 correct and 26 incorrect answers. The result was declared on 09.06.2023, and the petitioner was called for document verification on 18.07.2023. The respondent Board uploaded the candidates' marks on the website, revealing that the petitioner scored 170.167 marks, falling slightly short of the SC category's cutoff marks of 172.098, as per the result. Hence the petition challenging his result/non- selection.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Essentially the petitioner's case hinges on the disparity between the marks awarded by the respondent No.2, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (170.167 marks), and the petitioner's own assessment of his self claimed performance (174.834 marks, as per assertion in petition and as also argued). Petitioner’s performance has been evaluated on the basis of final answer key as prepared by the expert examiners. It is not within this Court's purview to substitute its judgment over that of the expert examiners basis whereof petitioner has been allocated marks.

5. It is a well-established legal principle that an unsuccessful candidate, having participated in the selection process, cannot subsequently contest the evaluation criteria simply due to his dissatisfaction with its outcome. Rules of the game must remain the same for of those who participated. Petitioner cannot be allowed to steal a march over others who were evaluated and have also been unsuccessful on the basis of same answer key.

6. Furthermore, the factual account outlined above indicates that the petitioner's dispute primarily revolves around contested facts rather than legal issues. In exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court must exercise caution regarding allegations and counter-allegations based solely on affidavits without sufficient supporting material or independent corroboration.

7. As an upshot, I am not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed.