Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhawana Tiwari vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17631/2025
Jyoti Rajpurohit D/o Shri Rajendra Rajpurohit, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Near Jhunjhar Well, Om Colony, Ward No. 22,
Churu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General.
2. Registrar(Exam), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Along with
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18333/2025
Kiran Bishnoi D/o Om Prakash Bishnoi, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Nokha Derasar, District Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18323/2025
Dilip Kumar S/o Nand Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gandhi
Colony, Ward No. 25 Churu Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,through Registrar
General.
2. Registrar(Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18354/2025
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/10/2025 at 05:51:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
Ravi Prakash S/o Ginni Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No.
29 Pinjrapol Ke Paas, Fatehpur, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18375/2025
1. Bhawana Tiwari D/o Kailash Chandra Tiwari, Aged About
32 Years, R/o F Block, 59-A, Hiran Magri Sector-14
Udaipur
2. Pragya Thanvi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 7- Parvati
Nagar, Circuit House,jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar
General.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshit Bhurani with
Ms. Kamini Joshi
Mr. Om Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Order
06/10/2025
1. Since an identical controversy pertaining to the Direct
Recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge, 2025 is involved in all the
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
instant writ petitions, therefore, the same have been heard
analogously and are being decided by this common order.
1.1. In sum and substance, the following reliefs have been
claimed in the instant petitions, and for the sake of brevity, the
prayer clauses are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
17631/2025:-
"1. By appropriate writ, order or direction, the
respondents may be directed to re-check and consider
the petitioner's correct answers of question no.42 and
76 of the booklet series B and include the petitioner's
name / roll number in the list of provisionally successful
candidates for appearing in main examination.
2. Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper in the interest of the
petitioner may also be passed."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the candidates
appearing in person have addressed the Court, while attempting
to demonstrate that the expert committee's report, which
addressed various objections raised regarding questions in the
Direct Recruitment Examination for the Cadre of Civil Judge, 2025,
is erroneous.
2.1 Learned counsel submit that the Hindi portion of the
examination requires re-evaluation, as the expert committee's
findings are not in-tandem with the standard literature available in
authentic books and sources.
3. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.Chayan Bothra, appearing for the respondents submits that the
Court's power and scope to interfere in the matters, like the
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
present one, are limited, given the anomalies alleged by the
petitioners, but at the same time and at the threshold, he submits
that the issue involved herein has already been addressed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case
of Mannu Yadav v. The Hon'ble High Court for Judicature of
Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13876/2025),
decided on 23.09.2025. He draws the Court's attention to
paragraphs 3 to 8 of the said judgment, which read as follows:-
"3. Considering the submissions raised, we asked the learned
counsel appearing for the High Court to place before us, the
Expert Committee Report which has examined the objections
raised to the various options, as reflected in the model
answer key. On perusal of the expert committee report, we
notice that for question No.79 of A series, there were as
many as 17 objections raised by candidates and therefore,
the committee examined the model answer No.4 with respect
to the question No.79. It reached to the conclusion that the
answer reflected in the model answer key was incorrect and
in fact, the correct answer was as shown option No.1.
Decision was, therefore, taken by the Examination Cell
headed by the committee of examinations to treat the option
No.1 as correct answer for question No.79 of A series.
4. In view of the expert committee report, we find
ourselves in no capacity to re-examine the report of
the Expert Committee. It is settled law that we, as
Judges, would not be experts to give our view relating
to an Expert Committee report. Suffice it to say that
the Expert Committee report is based on an opinion of
a professor of Hindi, as one of the main Members of
the committee. The question was relating to Hindi
Grammer. In view thereto, there is no occasion to take
a different view by us while exercising the power
under judicial review.
5. The law in this regard is settled law. It would be apposite
to notice the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Ranvijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors-
(2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.-(2018) 7
SCC 254, Kavita Bhargava & Ors. Vs. Registrar
Examination, Rajasthan High Court & Ors., Richal &
Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors-
(2018) 8 SCC 81 and Kanhya Lal Sain Vs. Registrar
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
Examination, RHC-2016 (2) RLW 1370 (Raj), where a
similar view has been taken.
6. On behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been
submitted that in the case of Anjali Goswami & Ors. Vs.
Registrar General, Delhi High Court- Writ Petition©
No.963/2019, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the
challenge to the correctness of the errors in the answer key
of the preliminary examination, where the examination
committee had awarded bonus marks to all the candidates
who appeared in the examination and revised answer keys in
respect of one of the questions. The Delhi High Court directed
to award one mark to the candidates who had opted for the
other option as the correct answer where two correct
answers were mentioned in a question.
7. The facts of the said case, as above, are therefore,
different from that of the present case as there is only one
correct answer and i.e. option No.1 and not option No.4 and
would not be appreciable.
8. In view of the above, we refrain from entertaining the writ
petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The report
which is produced before this Court is returned in the sealed
cover."
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since, as
reflected from the afore-quoted portion of the judgment rendered
in the case of Mannu Yadav (supra), that the Coordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court, in relation to the same examination, has
reviewed the findings of the expert committee and concluded that
no case for interference is made out, therefore, this Court may
now consider whether it is necessary to re-examine the expert
committee's report for the examination in question.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners have
tried to convince this Court that a copy of the expert committee
report may be provided to the petitioners for further evaluation of
the same, upon which, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
submits that examination is an ongoing process, and due to the
confidential nature of the expert committee report, it cannot be
disclosed to the candidates. However, he submits that the report
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
was furnished before the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at
Jaipur in a sealed cover, which has been duly examined by the
Hon'ble Court, and subsequently returned to the respondents.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case, alongwith the aforementioned judgment
rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur
Bench.
6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners have
a right to demonstrate any extraordinary error before it, however,
as the issue has already been addressed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Mannu Yadav
(supra), this Court is bound by judicial discipline to follow the
judgment already pronounced in regard to the same issue. The
petitioners contended that they possess new material from more
authentic sources, which could strengthen their case, however,
this Court, particularly in view of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench, is not persuaded by such argument, as
the core prayer and issue remain the same.
7. This Court finds that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench at Jaipur
Bench addressed not only a single question but a broader
spectrum of objections, as reflected in the model answer key. The
Hon'ble Coordinate Bench perused the expert committee report,
examined the objections and conclusions and specifically held that
for this examination and expert committee, no reason existed to
re-examine the report. The Hon'ble Court chose to rely on the
expert committee's findings, considering its composition and
conclusions. As the Coordinate Bench has already duly applied its
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43741-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-17631/2025]
mind to the issue, this Court, in the interest of judicial discipline,
is bound by the said verdict and finds no cause for further
interference in the matter.
8. Consequently, the present writ petitions are dismissed.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
14, 17, 39, 40 & 106-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:26:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
