Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sumit Gurjar vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 17 November, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1092/2025

Sumit Gurjar S/o Sh. Om Prakash Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Gali No. 2 Shyam Manohar Nagar, Chopasani,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
         S.a.m.i. Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
2.       Secretary,     Rajasthan          Staff     Selection      Boardb   Jaipur.
         S.a.m.i. Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Rajendra Katariya
                                   Mr. Bhawani Singh Ransi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Nandipna Gehlot for
                                   Mr. Manish Patel



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

17/11/2025

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

controversy raised in the present writ petition stands resolved in

view of the adjudication made by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble

Court at Jaipur Bench in Vijay Kumar Choudhary & Ors. vs.

Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Ors. & Ors. : D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No.960/2025 on 26.09.2025; holding thus:

"14.The contention raised by the appellant cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction, as it tantamount to the Court substituting its own opinion for that of the expert committee. The scope of interference in judicial review in a challenge to the correctness of

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1092/2025]

the answer key is well settled and the following decisions of the Supreme Court are referred:-

14.1 In U.P.P.S.C, through its Chairman & Anr.

Vs.Rahul Singh & Anr. reported in [2018 INSC 554] the Court held that restraint should be exercised by the courts in entertaining the challenge to the correctness of the answer key. The relevant paras of the judgment is:-

"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of-(1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested.

Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1092/2025]

14.2 In Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in [(2018)2 SCC 357] it was held that re-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheet should only be permitted in exceptional or rare case on demonstration of an error committed without the inferential process of reasoning or rationalization. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted:-

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1 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; 30.2 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 rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed, 30.3 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 academics; 30.4 The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

14.3 In Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [(2021)2 SCC 309] it was held that the courts should be very cautious to interfere with expert opinion in academic matters. The relevant para is:-

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1092/2025]

"17. 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 fora 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."

15. The material relied upon by the expert committee for considering the objections remained unchallenged. In view of the conclusions reached by the expert committee, the reliance placed by the appellants on certain textbooks shall be of no avail.

16. The appellants have taken us through the material relied upon by the expert committee, but have failed to establish that the conclusion arrived at by the expert committee is on the face of it erroneous that too without any inferential process or reasoning. Taking the case of the appellants at the highest, the argument is that the earlier answer was also correct but for interference in writ jurisdiction the test is that answer is patently wrong on the face of it. The appellant have failed to prima facie show that no reasonable body of expert of subject would accept Static RAM to be the correct answer and that the procedure adopted by the Board of inviting objections to the preliminary answer key was not fair. Reliance is placed on the

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1092/2025]

judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) wherein after considering the decision in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta reported in [(1983)4 SCC 309] it was held that it must be demonstrated that no reasonable body of men well- versed with the subject would regard the answer to be correct. It was held:-

"The key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong andt hat 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." In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer."

17. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) it is held that answer in key should be presumed to be correct and in case of doubt the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate as held.

18. The contention raised that in case inbuilt capacitor as issued in MOS Transistor was to be considered the term MOSFET should have been used in the question, is in fact a grievance that the question could have been phrased accurately. The contention does not fall within the scope of judicial scrutiny in writ jurisdiction of the correctness of the answer key.

19. The expert committee having examined the answer key and arrived at a reasoned conclusion

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49562-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1092/2025]

leaves no scope for interference by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Given the well- settled principles governing judicial review of answer keys in public examinations, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to interfere with the findings of the expert committee more so, in absence of challenge to the material relied by the expert committee.

20. No case is made out for interference in the intra court appeals, the same are dismissed.

21. All pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.

2. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in the light of

the decision rendered vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Vijay

Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) on the same terms.

3. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

41-Sudheer/-

(Uploaded on 21/11/2025 at 02:34:47 PM)