Rajasthan High Court
Prema Ram Patel S/O Bheema Ram Patel vs The State Of Rajasthan on 22 March, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18130/2023
1. Prema Ram Patel S/o Bheema Ram Patel, Aged About 31
Years, R/o O7, Opp Rajeshwar Nagar, Salawas Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Vishal Natwadiya S/o Hajari Lal Natwadiya, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Ward 06, Vrindavan Vihar Colony
Shahpura , Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Kana Ram Yadav S/o Govindram Yadav, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Sambhar, Phulera, Sunderpura, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
4. Rishi Goswami S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Lahakpur, Tehsil Bari Dholpur, Rajasthan.
5. Rajendra Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
101, Moti Nagar (West), Shiv Colony, Akshardham Road,
Akshardham Mandir, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Abhimanyu Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Vpo- Paota Dausa, The- Mahwa, Rajasthan.
7. Harsh Goyal S/o Mahaveer Prasad Goyal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Ward No. 20 Shahpura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Hema D/o Ghan Shyam Das, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Plot No. 37 Khasara 129, Sunthala, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Lakshya Yadav S/o Satish Kumar Yadav, Aged About 29
Years, R/o K-12 Mahaveer Nagar Durgapura Jaipur
Rajasthan.
10. Azad Rathi S/o Bodaram Rathi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
V/p Lototi, Teh. Jaitran Dist. Pali Rajasthan.
11. Devraj Patel S/o Chaina Ram Patel, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Bapu Walo Ka Bas, Dundara, Teh- Luni, Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
12. Richhpal Khurkhuriya S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village Khurkhura Kalan, Jhoojhanda Marwar
Mundwa, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
13. Nidhi D/o Shivnarayan Rao, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
14Spm Godhuwali Dhani, 15Spm, Ganganagar,
Rajasthan.
14. Hitendra Kumar S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Vatsalya Kunj, Near Shri Kheteswar Chauk, Sirohi,
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:05 PM)
(2 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Rajasthan.
15. Neeru Sharma W/o Dharmendra Kumar Sarasvat, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Indra Nagar Dhanipur, Aligarh, Uttar
Pradesh.
16. Vinita Jhuria D/o Madan Singh Jhuria, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Kisan Colony Prem Nagar, Ward No. 57 Near
Subodh School Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Rajasthan.
17. Magraj S/o Kewalram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shree
Krishna Kripa Saree Centre, Shiv Bhawan, Hari Om
Market, Mathania, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
18. Sooraj Singh Choudhary S/o Jaynarayan Jat, Aged About
28 Years, R/o 199, Gathalo Ki Dhani, Village- Nangal
Purohitan Teh-Amer, Dis.-Jaipur, Rajasthan.
19. Deependra Singh Rathore S/o Raghuveer Singh Rathore,
Aged About 38 Years, R/o Mayapur House, Pratap Nagar,
Loha Khan ,ajmer (Rajasthan).
20. Aditi Sharma D/o - Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Sirsai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
21. Praveen Ghunawat S/o Rajesh Ghunawat, Aged About 25
Years, R/o - Bhotwara, Karauli, Rajasthan.
22. Satyam Bisu S/o Ramratan Bisu, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Mojas Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
23. Jahid Ali Khan S/o Majid Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Jhareda Road Islam Colony, Hindaun City, District Karauli,
Rajasthan.
24. Omprakash S/o Jagdish Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Liyadara Post Bhadruna Sanchor District -Jalore,
Rajasthan.
25. Bhuvneshwar Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Temple Of Varah Avtar, Near Of Jain Mandir,
Gangapur City, Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
26. Mahesh Kumar S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Liyadara Post Bhadruna Tehsil Sanchore
District Jalore Rajasthan 343041.
27. Ritu Kumari R/o Sudheer Kumar, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Bapu Nagar, Khadi Colony , Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
28. Saurabh Soni S/o - Ganesh Narayan Soni, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 134, Shri Ram Nagar A, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:05 PM)
(3 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
29. Jitendra Lodha S/o Shyam Lodha, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o 186-B Civil Lines Nayapura Kota, Rajasthan.
30. Mayank Choudhary S/o Nand Kishore, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Gali No.2, Tilak Nagar Heeradas , Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
31. Nishant Kumar Saini S/o Anand Swaroop Saini, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Bamda Mandir Colony, Near Subash
Chowk, Bayana, bharatpur Rajasthan.
32. Ashish Bishnoi S/o Raisahab Poonia, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Ward No. 01 Gurudhayal Colony, Near Shri
Trimurti School, New Gharsana, Sri Ganganagar
Rajasthan.
33. Dharmendra Singh S/o Umashankar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Opposite SBI Branch Vpo- Khakharki Tehsil-
Merta Dist- Nagaur Rajasthan.
34. Ayushi Sharma D/o Rajesh Sharma, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o- Khandar Sawai, Madhopur, Rajasthan.
35. Lakshita Kumawat D/o Kailash Kumawat, Aged About 24
Years, R/o 167A Heera Nagar A, Heerapura Ajmer Road,
200 Feet Byepass Jaipur, Rajasthan.
36. Chandra Prakash Singaria S/o Hari Prasad, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Behind Gopinath Temple, Ward No 34, Regar
Basti, Sujangarh- 331507.
37. Manorma Pathak D/o Chandrashekhar Pathak, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Nyotha, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
38. Ram Prasad S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Sukhdev Nagar Bhopal Garh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
39. Harita Saraswat D/o Vijay Kumar Saraswat, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Ward No.1, Pilibanga Village, 1 Nr, 108,
Jaato Ka Mohalla, Pilibanga, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
40. Ankit Sharma S/o Ramlal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o E-7, Janki Vihar, Behind Heerapura Power House,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
41. Hemant Karodiya S/o Kishan Karodiya, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 2772 Khazane Walon Ka Rasta ,indra Bazar ,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
42. Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Ramsahay Meena, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Village Naroli Choad Th Baranala District
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:05 PM)
(4 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Gangapur City Rajasthan Jaipur.
43. Nitin Kumar Sharma S/o Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Village- Papurana Teh- Khetra Dist.-
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
44. Tej Singh S/o Manak Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
58, Bhawani Colony, sardar Samand Road, Pali,
Rajasthan.
45. Lavendra Singh S/o Vijay Pal Verma, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Post-Januthar Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
46. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Madan Lal Meena, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vpo-Bichhauchh Tehsil-Bamanwas Distt-
Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
47. Jai Singh S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Ward No. 4, Dabur Johri, Vpo Tarpura, Dist. Sikar
Rajasthan.
48. Yashpal-Singh S/o Dalpat Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Village Serna The- Jaswanpura Dist Jalore, Rajasthan.
49. Dharmender S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Naina Wali Dhani Po Kikarwaliteh- Sangariya, Disst.-
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
50. Jograj Singh S/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Kalawa, tehsil Pachpadra, Dist.- Barmer Rajasthan.
51. Guman Singh R/o Ishwar Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Singarpalo Ki Dhani, Ramsar, District - Barmer,
Rajasthan.
52. Ramesh Kumar Saini S/o Mr. Hari Ram Saini, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Vill-Post Dhuwan Kalan, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
Along with connected matters shown in the appended
Schedule-I
(Downloaded on 22/03/2024 at 09:44:05 PM)
(5 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. N. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shovit Jhajharia
Mr. Ankit Kumar &
Mr. Utkarsh Dubey
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Nikhil Kumawat with
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan & Mr. Gopesh Kumar
Mr. Suresh Khileri
Mr. Vigyan Shah with
Mr. Harendra Neel
Mr. Srijan Tiwari for
Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
Mr. Rajaram Choudhary
Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia
Mr. Tushar Panwar
Mr. Rakesh Prajapt
Ms. Neha Godara
Mr. S. K. Tank
Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat
Mr. A. R. Meena
Mr. R. K. Bairwa
Mr. V. K. Rathore
Mr. H. K. Sharma
Mr. Ajay Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Raghav, AAG
Mr. Yuvraj Samant with
Ms. Neha Amola
Mr. Neeraj Meena
Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, IAS, Chief
Examination Controller, RPSC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
Reserved on 17/01/2024
Pronounced on 22/03/2024
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
20.10.2023, as issued by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service
(6 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Commission (hereinafter, RPSC), pursuant to the invitation of
objection(s) from the applicants/candidates as against the model
answer key published on 01.10.2023. 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, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
18130/2023 titled as Prema Ram Patel and Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors, is being taken up as the lead case. 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.
2. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be
determined by this Court, is concisely noted herein-under:-
2.1 On 28.06.2023, the respondent-RPSC issued an
advertisement for the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services
Combined Competitive Examination-2023 (hereinafter, RAS 2023).
2.2 Being eligible as per the conditions enumerated in the
advertisement, the petitioners applied for the RAS 2023
Examination, in their respective categories.
2.3 On 08.08.2023, the respondent-RPSC issued a press note
whereby the date of examination was scheduled as 01.10.2023.
2.4 On 01.10.2023, the RAS-2023 Examination i.e. preliminary
round, was conducted by the respondent-RPSC.
2.5 After the completion of said written examination, the model
answer key was uploaded on the website of the respondent-RPSC.
(7 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
2.6 Subsequently, on the same date, vide press note dated
01.10.2023, objections were invited from the
applicants/candidates against the said model answer key.
2.7 Certain objections were raised by the candidates/applicants
against the model answer key so issued. At this nascent juncture,
it is made clear that as per the record before this Court, it is
reflected that not all the petitioners had raised objections against
the model answer key, in the time frame so prescribed by the
respondent-RPSC.
2.8 On 20.10.2023, the final answer key for the RAS 2023
Preliminary Examination was released by the respondent-RPSC.
On the same date, the result of the applicants/candidates along
with the cut-off marks for the preliminary examination was also
declared.
2.9 In accordance with the final answer key released by the
respondent-RPSC and the corresponding result of the petitioners,
the petitioners failed to qualify for the RAS 2023 Mains
Examination.
2.10 Being aggrieved of the purported incorrectness of the final
answer key dated 20.10.2023, the petitioners have preferred the
instant writ petition.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.
N. Mathur, Senior Counsel, unanimously and unequivocally, along
with the other counsel argued that the impugned action of the
respondent-RPSC, 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
(8 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
petitioners, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. As a
result, the relief sought by the petitioners is threefold. Qua the
primary relief, it is prayed that the final answer key, as also the
result dated 20.10.2023, be quashed and set aside. Secondly, the
objections advanced by the petitioners be duly considered and
thereafter, a fresh final answer key be prepared by the
respondent-RPSC. Whereas, by way of the tertiary relief, it is
prayed that in accordance with the subsequently revised final
answer key, the result of the petitioners be revised and thereafter,
if eligible as per the fresh cut-off marks, the petitioners be
declared eligible for the RAS 2023 Mains Examination. The other
reliefs, as sought, are purely incidental to the threefold prayers
stated above. In order to establish their case, learned counsel for
the petitioners raised the following arguments:-
3.1 That under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ
court can exercise judicial review in respect of disputed answer
keys and question-answers, where it clearly appears that the
disputed answer key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous and
that if a prudent man can prove them to be incorrect by way of his
ordinary understanding, then judicial review is not prohibited
under such circumstances. Thus, considering the fact that the
answer keys issued by the respondent-RPSC are prima facie
demonstrably erroneous and objectively incorrect, judicial review
in respect of such an answer key is warranted for protecting the
fundamental rights of the petitioners.
3.2 That in matters of public employment, especially on such
celebrated and eminent posts, the scope of fallaciousness must be
(9 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
removed in-toto and due diligence ought to be exercised at the
end of the body conducting the examination to ensure
transparency, fairness and correctness in the recruitment process,
at all stages.
3.3 That with regards to the disputed answers/questions, the
petitioners placed reliance upon authentic text books, which
makes it abundantly clear that there is no room for doubt and
therefore, the answer key issued by the respondent-RPSC
warrants judicial intervention.
3.4 That in Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and
Ors. reported in 1983 AIR (SC) 1230, the Hon'ble Apex Court
categorically held that it would be unfair to penalize the
candidates for not giving an answer which accords with the
answer key, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated
to be incorrect. Hence, there is no doubt that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, when the answer key is erroneous and
demonstrably wrong, the candidates cannot be made to suffer.
3.5 That the answer keys have to be prepared very carefully,
primarily for the welfare of the candidates, who study for the
examination diligently. An incorrect answer key results in the
merit being made a casualty and/or a mockery on the face of
fairness.
3.6 That one can well understand the predicament of a young
student at the threshold of their career, when despite giving
correct answers, the students suffers and as a result, faces a huge
setback, for no fault attributable to the student. Moreover, in
educational matters, where the Courts are slow in extending
(10 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
judicial interference, the responsibility upon the respondent-RPSC
increases manifestly, for conducting a fair and proper examination,
with demonstrably correct answers.
3.7 That reliance was also placed upon an array of judgements,
as passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also this Court, in
furtherance of the dictum enunciated in Kanpur University
(Supra). Amongst the judgments so relied upon, are Manish
Ujwal vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University reported
in (2005) 13 SCC 744, Guru Nayak Dev University vs.
Saumil Garg and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749, Rishal
and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.
reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81, Ankit Sharma and Ors. vs.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.: SLP Nos.
4270-4271/2022, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 497/2022
titled as RPSC and Ors. vs. Gyanendra Sharma and Ors., D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1092/2015 titled as Pankaj Oswal and Ors. vs. RPSC and
Ors. and State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Kamlesh Kumar
Sharma and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 349,
amongst others.
4. In light of the foregoing submissions, it was
conclusively argued that by preparing disputed answer keys in the
field of public employment, the respondent-RPSC has tainted the
entire examination process, due to which the future of many
candidates has been left hanging in the balance, despite no fault
on their part. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed for the
(11 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
errors attributable to the respondent-RPSC and as a result, the
petitioners cannot be denied selection as well, on the basis of a
demonstrably incorrect answer key. The denial of selection to the
petitioners is a direct violation of their fundamental rights
conferred under Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
As a result, in light of the submissions advanced, learned counsel
for the petitioners prayed for the reliefs, as noted above.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC,
Mr. Yuvraj Samant, vehemently opposed the contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioners and argued that the
scope of judicial review is limited in the matters of administrative
decision-making. It was contended that the Court, while exercising
writ jurisdiction, can only consider the correctness of the decision-
making process and not the decision itself. While exercising its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court
cannot take it upon itself to actually ascertain the correctness of
the disputed answer key, for the simple reason, that the Courts
are not experts of the contested subject-matter and therefore, do
not possess the requisite expertise to ascertain the correctness of
the answer-key. Hence, for undertaking the said task, the Court
must leave it upon the experts to ascertain the correctness and
validity of questions/answers, as they would be more susceptible
to the nuances of the subject-matter and thereby, adjudge upon
the correctness in an informed manner. In this regard, it was
submitted that upon receiving the objections by the
candidates/applicants in pursuance to the press note dated
01.10.2023, the experts duly assessed the objections whilst
(12 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
placing proper reliance on authentic study material and thereafter,
made requisite changes, wherever required. Only after the said
assessment of the objections, as received, the final answer key
dated 20.10.2023 was issued and thereafter, the consequent
result was declared in the public domain.
6. Therefore, in furtherance of the arguments advanced,
Mr. Samant contended that while undertaking the exercise of
judicial review, Courts must only see that whether the decision
impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. In this regard, it
was argued that in the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, no
error is apparent on the face of the record. The respondent-RPSC,
after duly taking into consideration the objections raised by the
candidates, has applied its own mind and thereafter, arrived at the
impugned answers.
7. As a result, whilst praying for the dismissal of the
present batch of petitions, learned counsel for the respondent-
RPSC placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court
as enunciated in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.
and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Tajvir Singh Sodhi
and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in
2023/INSC/309, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,
through its Chairman and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr.
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.
vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC
309, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Arun
Kumar and Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Kavita
Bhargava vs. Registrar, Examination, Rajasthan High Court,
(13 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022, amongst
others.
8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for both the sides, scanned through the
voluminous record and perused the judgments cited at Bar.
9. Preceding to the adjudication on merits, this Court
deems it appropriate to take note of certain germane
considerations, factual averments and procedural aspects, which
envelop the lis before this Court. They are noted herein-under:-
9.1 The present batch of petitions before this Court are filed
against the final answer-key dated 20.10.2023, as issued by the
respondent-RPSC, for the RAS and RTS Combined Competitive
Examination, 2023-Preliminary.
9.2 Notification/Advertisement for the RAS-2023 Examination
was issued on 28.06.2023 by the respondent-RPSC.
9.3 The RAS-2023 Examination-Preliminary is a paper which
consists of two subjects, namely General Knowledge and General
Science. The detailed syllabus for the said examination and more
particularly, for the concerned subjects, was uploaded by the
respondent-RPSC on its website on 30.06.2023.
9.4 The total number of applicants who applied for the
examination were approximately 7,00,000. Whereas, the total
number of candidates who appeared in the examination were
about 4,57,000. Out of the said candidates, 19,500 candidates are
shortlisted for the next round of examination i.e. RAS-2023 Mains
Examination.
(14 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
9.5 The scheme for the RAS Examination-2023 is governed by
the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment
by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999. Whereas, the
procedural aspects regarding the administration of the
examination are governed by the decisions arrived at by the Full
Commission of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
9.6 The RAS Examination 2023-Preliminary, was held on
01.10.2023 and the Model Answer Key qua the same was issued
on 01.10.2023 as well.
9.7 Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC issued a Press Note dated
01.10.2023 for calling of objections from the candidates on the
Model Answer Key so issued on the same date i.e. 01.10.2023.
9.8 The window to advance/submit objections online was open
from 02.10.2023 to 04.10.2023.
9.9 The respondent-RPSC, after the closure of the time period
provided for advancing objections, collated the received
objections. A total challenge to 90 questions was laid by the
aggrieved candidates.
9.10 Subsequently, as per the record, the respondent-RPSC
referred the objected questions to the subject matter experts and
after receiving the report of the subject experts, the respondent-
RPSC prepared the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, based on
the said report of the subject experts. The final result qua the
candidates was also prepared on the basis of the said answer key.
9.11 Accordingly, the final answer key and the result for the RAS-
2023 Examination-Preliminary was also declared on the same date
i.e. 20.10.2023.
(15 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
9.12 As per the record, on the basis of the experts report and
upon a consideration of the objections raised by the candidates,
by the expert committee so constituted, the respondent-RPSC
finally adopted the said experts report and deleted 5 questions,
changed the answer in 3 questions and whereas qua the
remaining 82 questions, the original answers were retained as
opined by the expert committee.
9.13 Upon a further scrutiny of the record, it is also noted that out
of the 569 petitioners, only 93 petitioners had raised an objection
against the Model Answer Key during the prescribed time frame.
Whereas, qua the 476 petitioners, no objection whatsoever, was
received by the respondent-RPSC.
9.14 On not being shortlisted for the RAS 2023-Mains Examination
i.e. subsequent round of examination, the petitioners have filed
the present batch of petitions challenging the impugned answer
key dated 20.10.2023.
10. From the overarching factual narrative of the present
batch of writ petitions, it is rather apparent that the scope of the
controversy/lis before this Court pertains to the judicial review of
the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, as published for the RAS-
2023 Preliminary Examination, pursuant to receiving of the
objections from select petitioners/candidates.
11. At this nascent juncture, prior to delving into the arena
of assessment of the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, with
regards to the objections raised juxtaposed with the answers
crystalized pursuant to the consideration of said objections, this
Court deems it appropriate to explicate on the following key legal
(16 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
considerations, which often envelop matters concerning the
assessment of answer keys in public examinations, namely:-
11.1 Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in Examinations for Recruitment in Public
Services.
11.2 The 'Exceptional Circumstance': When can an interference be
made by the Courts?
11.3 The 'Exceptional Circumstance': What is palpably and
demonstrably erroneous?
11.4 Limitations of Courts in Matters of Judicial Review of Answer
Keys.
A. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in Examinations for Recruitment in
Public Services.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judicial
pronouncements, has time and again held that the Courts ought
to be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to what
is correct and well-judged/ascertained, in relation to academic
matters, in preference to those formulated by and arrived at, by
professional experts possessing prowess, proficiency and expertise
in the actual subjects included in the impugned examinations.
In Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) and Vikesh Kumar Gupta
(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has endorsed the view that re-
evaluations of answer keys may be permitted by Courts, which
shall be purely subject to the rules framed qua the administration
of the concerned examination. In any event, the practice of
Court's re-evaluation of answer-keys, as prepared by subject-
(17 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
matter experts, has been time and again abominated, primarily
looking to the mitigating factum of the Courts not possessing the
requisite knowledge/expertise in academic matters, nuances of
which can only be understood by subject-matter experts who have
spent a considerable amount of time studying the subjects and
garnering experience in their concerned field of study. No one
would be more suited for carrying out an assessment of an answer
key, than an expert who comprehensively understands the
framework of the question paper and the context/purpose with
which the impugned question is incorporated in the body of the
examination.
The scope of judicial review is miniscule, insofar as Court's
interference is sparingly permissible, only after obtaining the
opinion of experts, who have accumulated sufficient knowledge in
their stream of academia. Regardless, the Courts, purely on their
own volition and knowledge, cannot determine/ascertain the
correctness of an answer-key.
B. The 'Exceptional Circumstance': When can an
interference be made by the Courts?
The only exception carved out, permitting the Court's interference
in disputed answer keys whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, pertains to when the disputed
answer key/question-answers appear to be 'palpably and
demonstrably erroneous'.
The dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as enunciated in Ran Vijay
Singh (Supra) is reproduced herein-under:-
(18 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear
and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination permits
the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny
of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may
permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation
governing an examination does not permit re-
evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as
distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is
demonstrated very clearly, without any
"inferential process of reasoning or by a process
of rationalization" and only in rare or exceptional
cases that a material error has been committed;
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it
has no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to the academics; (iv) The
Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption (v) In
the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the
candidate."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta
(Supra), held as under:-
"11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if Rules
permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts
which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer sheets itself,
particularly when the Commission has assessed
the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur
and Anr.: (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show
deference and consideration to the
recommendation of the Expert Committee who
have the expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations [See-Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.
Ramesh and Ors. : (2010) 8 SCC 372).
12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court,
it was not open to the Division Bench to have
(19 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
examined the correctness of the questions and the
answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on
Richal and Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and Ors.: (2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said
judgment, this Court interfered with the selection
process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the correctness of
the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the
said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the
dispute in this case.
13. A perusal of the above judgments would
make it clear that courts should be very slow in
interfering with expert opinion in academic
matters. In any event, assessment of the questions
by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not
permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments
to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of
cases challenging selections pending in courts for a
long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in
appointments is the continuance of those appointed
on temporary basis and their claims for
regularization. The other consequence resulting from
delayed appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to lack of
sufficient personnel."
Hence, in light of the foregoing observations, the only exception
carved out, whereby the Court's may extend indulgence in
disputed question-answers, is when the same appear to be
'palpably and demonstrably erroneous'.
C. The 'Exceptional Circumstance': What is palpably and
demonstrably erroneous?
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the celebrated judgment of Kanpur
University (Supra), expounded on what is 'palpably and
demonstrably wrong', by holding as under:-
"15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of
great importance to the student community.
Normally, one would be inclined to the view,
(20 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
especially if one has been a paper setter and an
examiner, that the key answer furnished be the
paper setter and accepted by the University as
correct, should not be allowed to be challenged.
One way of achieving it is not to publish the key
answer at all. If the University had not published the
key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is
not a correct way of looking at these matters which
involve the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the
key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy
would have been worse than the disease because, so
many students would have had to suffer the injustice
in silence. The publication of the key answer has
unravelled an happy state of affairs to which the
University and the State Government must find a
solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key
answer has given them an opportunity to have a
closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the
human system.
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the
University, contended that no challenge should be
allowed to be made to the correctness of a key
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We
agree that the key-answer should be assumed
to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and
that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a process
of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it
must be such as no reasonable body of men
well-versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct. The contention of the
University is falsified in this case by a large
number of acknowledged text-books, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-
books leave, no room for doubt that the answer
given by the students is correct and the key
answer is incorrect."
While further elaborating upon the test laid down in Kanpur
University (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in West Bengal
Central School Service Commission and Ors. vs. Abdul
(21 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Halim reported in (2019) 18 SCC 39 laid down the test to
determine whether an answer-key is palpably and demonstrably
erroneous. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:-
"8.In exercise of its power of judicial review, the
Court is to see whether the decision impugned is
vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to
determine whether a decision is vitiated by error
apparent on the face of the record is whether the
error is self-evident on the face of the record or
whether the error requires examination or
argument to establish it. If an error has to be
established by a process of reasoning, on points
where there may reasonably be two opinions, it
cannot be said to be an error on the face of the
record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v.
Mallikarjuna. If the provision of a statutory Rule
is reasonably capable of two or more
constructions and one construction has been
adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ Court. It is only an
obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory
provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a
decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong
in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by
issuance of writ of Certiorari.
9. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be
wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a
decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could have ever arrived at it,
the same is liable to be struck down by a writ
Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported
by the materials on record, the same may be
regarded as perverse."
Therefore, it is abundantly made clear that a disputed question-
answer shall only be treated as palpably and demonstrably wrong,
if it is shown that in order to catch hold of the said error and/or
notice the fallaciousness crept therein, one ought not to apply a
process of reasoning. Rather, the error should be so apparent, that
the same may discernible by a mere glimpse, as opposed to a
(22 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
thoughtful analysis. Similarly, even when two equally valiant
interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that
the answer is demonstrably erroneous.
D. Limitations of Courts in Matters of Judicial Review of
Answer Keys.
A court carrying on the exercise of judicial review merely
scrutinizes the process in question-administrative or statutory, but
necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a
procedurally fair and regular manner, free from illegality, not
motivated by malice or mala fides or not so manifestly
unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable individual placed
in that situation would arrive at such a conclusion. In this regard,
reliance can be placed upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal
Dhawan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan.
12. Having taken note of the established legal position with
regards to the scope of judicial review under Article 226, this
Court, in order to extend interference in the present batch of
petitions, needs to assess whether the impugned model answer
key for the contested questions, is palpably and demonstrably
erroneous/incorrect or not.
13. The petitioners have contested the following questions,
as against the answers furnished in the final answer key dated
20.10.2023. The relevant tabular chart is noted herein-under:-
S. No. Disputed Model Final Answer Right Answer/Deleted
Question No. Answer key Key
1 2 1 Key Deleted Option No.1 is correct,
it may not be deleted
1 2 1 Deleted Option No. 1 is correct,
(23 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
it may not be deleted
2 6 3 Deleted Option No. 3 is correct,
it may not be deleted
(Annexure-12)
3 19 3 Deleted Option No. 4 is correct
4 22 4 4 Question framed
incorrectly; it may be
deleted
(Annexure-13)
5 39 4 4 Should be deleted
6 44 1 1 Multiple options
correct; Should be
deleted
(Annexure-14)
7 46 1 1 Multiple options
correct; Should be
deleted
(Annexure-15)
8 49 2 2 Option No. 4 is correct
(Annexure-16)
9 57 3 1 Should be deleted
10 74 4 4 Should be deleted
11 76 4 4 Multiple options
correct; Should be
deleted
(Annexure-17)
12 87 3 Deleted Option No. 3 is correct
14 98 2 2 Question framed
incorrectly; it may be
deleted
15 115 1 1 Question framed
incorrectly; it may be
deleted
(Annexure-18)
16 126 4 4 Multiple options
correct; Should be
deleted
(Annexure-19)
17 145 3 3 Question framed
incorrectly; it may be
deleted
18 147 3 3 Appropriate option not
found
(Annexure-20)
19 149 4 4 Multiple options
correct; Should be
deleted
(Annexure-21)
20 150 3 3 Should be deleted
(24 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
14. Upon a considered perusal of the contested questions
as against the model answer key dated 01.10.2023 and the final
answer key dated 20.10.2023, this Court in congruence with the
established legal position on the subject-matter, deems it
appropriate to hold that upon a prima facie perusal of the
contested final answer key dated 20.10.2023, across the subjects
of General Knowledge and General Science, in the absence of any
material/information to elaborate upon the incorrectness of the
disputed answers, no prudent man having sufficient knowledge,
shall be able to categorically catch a glimpse of the mistake so
purported to have crept in the impugned answer key dated
20.10.2023. Essentially, in order to establish a case of
incorrectness and factual inaccuracy in the contested answer key,
a prudent individual would have to take a deep dive into the world
of academia and research on the purported illegalities. Even then,
in order of lift the veil of inaccuracy and incorrectness, reasonable
debate would be necessary before an informed decision can be
made in adjudging the validity of the answers challenged.
Therefore, in the contested answers as included in the final
answer key dated 20.10.2023, reasonable debate coupled with
knowledge of academia shall be required to factually ascertain
whether the answers reflected, are correct or not.
15. This Court, whilst analyzing the disputed answers
through the lens of a prudent man, fails to come across any error
apparent on the face of the record, compelling the Court to
exercise the narrowly permissible judicial review under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
(25 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
16. Illustratively, the following contested questions along
with their answers are noted herein-under:-
Which are the largest Bauxite and Mica producing States in
India?
Bauxite - Mica
(1) Madhya Pradesh-Maharashtra
(2) Chhattisgarh-Odisha
(3) Odisha-Andhra Pradesh
(4) Jharkhand-Rajasthan
(5) Question not attempted
Model Answer Key: Option No.3
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Deleted the Question pursuant to receiving the objections
against the model answer key dated 01.10.2023.
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Option No.3.
Question No.22
Which one of the following Commission did recommend the
establishment of an Inter-Government Council in place of an
Inter-State Council.
(1) Rajmannar Commission
(2) Punchhi Commission
(3) Administrative Reforms Commission, 1969
(4) Sarkaria Commission
(5) Question not attempted
Model Answer Key: Option No.4
Action of the respondent-RPSC in the Final Answer Key:
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Question is
framed incorrectly and therefore, the same ought to be
deleted.
Which of the following statement, related to Pharmaceutical
sector is not correct?
(26 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
(1) India has 80 percent market share of global
vaccine manufacturing.
(2) India is the largest provider of generic
medicines globally.
(3) India is ranked 14th worldwide in the production
of pharma products by value.
(4) India is ranked 3rd worldwide in the production
of pharma products by volume.
(5) Question not attempted.
Model Answer Key: Option No.1
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Maintained Option No.1
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Multiple
options are correct and therefore, the question ought to have
been deleted.
Question No.46
Which of the following statement related to automobile sector
is not correct?
(1) It generated direct and indirect employment
of 5.3 crore at the end of the 2021.
(2) It contributes 7.1 percent to India's GDP.
(3) In 2021, India was World's fourth largest
manufacturer of passenger cars.
(4) In 2021, India was the largest manufacturer
of two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles in
the World.
(5) Question not attempted.
Model Answer Key: Option No.1
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Multiple
options are correct and therefore, the question ought to have
been deleted.
In which of the following scheme, the main objective is to
promote the use of appropriate methods, care and services
during pregnancy, safe delivery and lactation period to
(27 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
improve the health and nutritional status of pregnant and
lactating women and their infants (0-6 months)?
(1) Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana
(2) Indira Gandhi Matrutva Poshan Yojana
(3) Mission Vatsalya Yojana
(4) Palanhar Yojana
(5) Question not attempted
Model Answer Key: Option No.3
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Changed the answer to Option No.1, pursuant to the
consideration of the objections received.
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Question
ought to be deleted. No material provided to support said
claim.
Out of total Oxygen present in the earth's atmosphere, the
estimated production of oxygen by Amazon forest through
photosynthesis is:-
(1) 40 percent
(2) 50 percent
(3) 70 percent
(4) 20 percent
(5) Question not attempted
Model Answer Key: Option No.4
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Maintained Option No.4
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Question
ought to be deleted. No material provided to support said
claim.
The spread of which of the following Sufi sect was mostly
limited to Sindh, Multan and Punjab?
(1) Qadiri
(2) Naqshbandi
(3) Suhrawardi
(4) Chisti
(5) Question not attempted
(28 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Model Answer Key: Option No.3
Action of the respondent-RPSC in Final Answer Key:
Maintained Option No.3
Option deemed correct by the petitioners: Question
ought to be deleted, as the same is framed incorrectly. No
material provided to support said claim.
17. In order to even acknowledge the scope of change in
the final answer key dated 20.10.2023, this Court after analyzing
the questions illustratively noted above, cannot help but highlight
the need to adopt an inferential process of reasoning, including
the comparative analysis and juxtaposition of various reports and
study material, to arrive at an objective decision. Having said that,
it is noted that the respondent-RPSC, pursuant to the receiving of
the objections against the model answer key dated 01.10.2023,
has exercised its discretion, consulted with the experts and
thereafter, effectuated necessary changes, as is illustratively
reflected by the Questions noted above. Therefore, no rare and
exceptional case arises, whereby this Court without adopting an
inferential process of reasoning or rather, a process of
rationalization, permits scrutiny of the final answer key dated
20.10.2023.
18. In this regard, it is noted that on the basis of the
reports of the experts and also, on the consideration of the
objections so received by the expert committee, the respondent-
RPSC finally adopted the experts report and deleted 5 questions in
total and changed the answer in 3 questions. Whereas, qua the
other 82 questions against which the objections were received,
the original answers noted in the model answer key, were
(29 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
maintained. Correspondingly, it is noted that this Court whilst
undertaking the exercise of judicial review, merely scrutinizes the
process in question- administrative or statutory, but necessarily
public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a procedurally
fair and regular manner, free from illegality and not motivated by
malice or mala fides. The process and the impugned finding, ought
not to be so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion, that no
reasonable individual placed in an akin situation would arrive at
such a conclusion.
19. However, in the foregoing facts and circumstances of
the present case, the objections raised by the
petitioners/candidates against the model answer key dated
01.10.2023 were duly taken note of the by the respondent-RPSC
and thereafter, in examining those objections, the expert
committee duly analyzed the merits and correctness of the
objections and thereafter, effectuated necessary changes in the
final answer key dated 20.10.2023, wherever required, as is noted
above. Therefore, no procedural lapse occurred in carrying out the
said exercise. In such an event, any challenge raised to the
correctness and/or validity of the opinion of the experts, on the
basis of which the final answer key dated 20.10.2023 was
prepared, is not to be interfered with by this Court, especially in
light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in the
judgments referred above.
20. Therefore, as long as all the candidates who sat in the
examination, are treated equally viz-a-viz the system of
evaluation in place, sans discrimination, then no grievance qua the
(30 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
impugned examination subsists. It is well settled law that in
academic matters, the experts word is the last word. The court
neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the
correctness of such decisions. As a result, the court cannot sit in
judgment over those findings of experts and examine the material
on record and arrive at its own conclusions as a court of appeal. It
is also not possible in such circumstances to go on appointing
committees, especially when the experts have duly analyzed the
objections received from the candidates/petitioners and thereafter,
released the final answer key dated 20.10.2023. An unending
litigation for employment in public posts, in connection with which,
the career trajectory of so many young individuals is coherently
tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance for so long,
that the end result subsumes and overshadows the duress and
hardship faced by the litigants. Moreover, even as per the salutary
rule as endorsed in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), in the event of
doubt, the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather
than to the candidates perceiving injustice.
21. As a result, the answer key should be assumed to be
correct unless it is proved to be wrong, albeit the same should not
be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be
wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of
men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.
However, such was not the case in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, as demonstrated above. If it is a case of doubt,
unquestionably the answer-key must be preferred and only if it is
(31 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
beyond the realm of doubt, the possibility of judicial review must
be entertained. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the
dictum of this Court, as previously enunciated in Surjan Lal
Dhawan (Supra). The view as noted above, has also been
reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments
namely Rahul Singh (Supra), Arun Kumar (Supra) and
Mukesh Thakur (Supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (Supra) and
also, the Division Bench of this Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice Mr. M. M. Srivastava as enunciated in Kavita Bhargava
(Supra).
22. Accordingly, placing cumulative reliance upon the
observations made herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate
to dismiss the instant batch of writ petitions.
23. Resultantly, the petitions are disposed of. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /
(32 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
Schedule-I
Sr. No. SBCWP No. Reserved Date
17.01.2024
(33 of 33) [CW-18130/2023]
18.01.2024
29.01.2024
45. 1531/2024 31.01.2024
46. 1321/2024 02.02.2024
47. 1752/2024 05.02.2024
49. 1812/2024 06.02.2024
50. 20459/2023 07.02.2023
51. 1967/2024 08.02.2024
52. 1567/2024 12.02.2024
54. 18985/2023 15.02.2024
56. 2875/2024 26.02.2024
57. 2750/2024 27.02.2024
58. 3067/2024 29.02.2024
59. 1767/2024 01.03.2024
60. 482/2024 04.03.2024
61. 3334/2024 05.03.2024
62. 18602/2023 19.03.2024
63. 4195/2024 20.03.2024
64. 1817/2024 21.03.2024
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
