Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,
ANUROOP SINGHI
HARDIKA UPADHYAY – Appellant
Versus
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT – Respondent
[2025:RJ-JD:44016-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16997/2025 Hardika Upadhyay D/o Anil Upadhyay, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of F-18, Azad Nagar, Near Naha Pragya Circle, Bhilwara (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Secretary, Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Ajmera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chayan Bothra HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
07/10/2025
1. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Chayan Bothra submits that the controversy involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.10.2025 pass
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.
Courts should be slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and assessment of questions by the courts to arrive at correct answers is not permissible.
The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in expert evaluations of recruitment exams should be minimal unless clear errors are proven, maintaining the integrity of the evaluation process.
The benefit of doubt in matters related to the correctness of answer keys in competitive examinations should be resolved in favor of the examination authority, and the key answers should be presumed ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article